Docstoc

Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study Final Report

Document Sample
Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study Final Report Powered By Docstoc
					 Grey and Bruce Counties
   Groundwater Study

         Final Report

            July 2003




           Prepared by:


   Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc.

      WHI Project # 3020337




           Prepared for:


         County of Bruce
          County of Grey
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
                                                                                       Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc.
                                                                                       460 Phillip Street – Suite 101
                                                                                Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 5J2
                                                                         Phone: (519) 746-1798 Fax: (519) 885-5262
                                                                                    Email consulting@flowpath.com
                                                                              Web www.waterloohydrogeologic.com


August 5, 2003



Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study
Steering Committee



Re:    Final Report
       Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study



Dear Committee Members,

On behalf of our Consultant Team, it is with pleasure that we submit the Final Report for the Grey
and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study. The report presents the characterization of regional
groundwater resources, and the results of a contaminant sources inventory, groundwater use
assessment and the Wellhead Protection Area modeling. Comprehensive data has been
compiled, analysed and presented to highlight the significance of this information as it relates to
the Objectives of the Groundwater Study.

Assimilating the results of such diverse and thorough analyses into a comprehensive report that
outlines regional groundwater resource management and local groundwater protection measures
has been a challenging but valuable undertaking. The groundwater protection measures will help
municipalities develop plans to more adequately manage their groundwater resources.

We look forward to your comments on the methodology, analyses and results of this study.



Yours truly,
WATERLOO HYDROGEOLOGIC, INC.




D.J. Miln Harvey, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Project Manager
Ph: (519) 746-1798, ext. 233
mharvey@flowpath.com
                                                                                    Executive Summary




Executive Summary
Grey and Bruce Counties rely heavily on groundwater as a source of supply for its drinking
water needs, and are fortunate that the quantity of groundwater available is capable of meeting
the current water demand and that the water is of excellent quality. However, potential threats to
the quantity and quality of this resource exist within the Counties. The Grey and Bruce Counties
Groundwater Study was undertaken to develop an improved understanding of local groundwater
conditions within the context of larger regional groundwater flow systems. This groundwater
study has brought together and evaluated an extensive compilation of regional and local water
resources information, which is reflected in the scope of work that has been completed.

The area encompassed by the study, as presented in Figure 1.1, includes the County of Grey,
the County of Bruce, and a 5 kilometer buffer area around them. The study partners
acknowledge that the basic groundwater functions (recharging, transmitting, assimilating
potential contaminants, storing and discharging water) play an essential role in maintaining the
health of an ecosystem. Better understanding these regional groundwater functions is helpful to
provide a secure supply of clean water to municipal and communal water systems, as well as to
individual groundwater users who do not have access to a municipal supply.

Existing and future land use practices exercised throughout the Counties may pose threats to
the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources for both quantity and quality. This study
provides a more thorough understanding of local and regional groundwater resources that will
aid in the development of sound groundwater management and groundwater protection
measures to help ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource.

The study partners reflect the regional and local relevance of groundwater in this study. They
include the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), County governments, Conservation Authorities,
                                                  s
and local consultants. The MOE is the project’ major funding organization and provincial
partner. The Grey County Planning Department, the Bruce County Planning Department, the
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) and the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
(GSCA) are also major partners to the study and have provided funding for its completion.

At the onset of the study and number of objectives were developed by the Study Partners. The
objectives of the Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study are provided below:

Objective 1:   To define and map local and regional groundwater conditions;
Objective 2:   To define groundwater intrinsic susceptibility;
Objective 3:   To compile a contaminant sources inventory;
Objective 4:   To complete wellhead protection area (WHPA) mapping for 48 municipal
               groundwater well systems;
Objective 5:   To conduct a contaminant source assessment within each WHPA;
Objective 6:   To develop a municipal action plan for implementing a groundwater protection
               strategy; and,
Objective 7:   To promote public groundwater awareness throughout the study area through
               open houses, local media news releases, and a project website.

Source protection is an excellent term to describe the different study objectives listed above.
Source protection is the first of five barriers commonly applied to provide safe drinking water, as
outlined in Report 2 of the Walkerton Inquiry (O’  Connor, 2002). The other four barriers include




                                                                                                    i
Executive Summary



treatment, a secure distribution system, water quality monitoring, and well-planned responses to
adverse conditions.

It is important to reflect on the detail incorporated into the regional mapping presented in this
report and to consider appropriate uses for this information. A large portion of the groundwater
and aquifer characterization mapping developed for this study was completed at a regional-
scale. The mapping used point information to develop themes such as the depth to bedrock,
sand and gravel thickness, water table elevation, and aquifer vulnerability. The point information
used to develop this mapping is included as small dots on each relevant map. This has been
done to remind the end users of these products that, although the mapping represents
continuous surfaces, it was developed from point data that is not evenly distributed throughout
the study area. The quality of the point data used in the mapping has been evaluated and is
considered acceptable for its purpose, however it has not been field verified. As such, it is
important to remember that the mapping is an interpreted representation of the real world.

The regional maps are presented at a scale of 1:650,000. This means that a 1 mm line is
accurate to within 650 m, and a 1 cm by 1cm square is accurate to within 4.225 ha. This level of
detail is not appropriate for site-specific interpretation, but it does provide valuable information
for regional scale analyses.

This report was organized in sections to address the study objectives outlined above. The
sections are organized by topic to coincide with the different regional and local study objectives.
The study also includes a comprehensive groundwater protection strategy and provides detailed
conclusions and recommendations. Brief descriptions of the topics included in each of the
sections are provided in the following paragraph.

Section 2 presents the regional groundwater and aquifer characterization. This characterization
was used to complete the groundwater susceptibility analysis, which is presented in Section 3.
Section 4 presents the groundwater use assessment, which was completed to evaluate how
groundwater is used throughout the Counties, and to develop a general regional water budget.
A contaminant sources inventory was completed to identify potential contaminant sources
throughout the Counties, and is presented in Section 5. Using the information generated in
Sections 2, 3, and 4, groundwater modeling was completed to map, at a local-scale, time-of-
travel municipal wellhead protection areas. The groundwater modeling and wellhead protection
area mapping results are presented in Section 6. In Section 7, the WHPA boundaries are
overlain with the groundwater susceptibility and potential contaminant sources and evaluated at
a local-scale. Public consultation aspects of the study are presented in Section 8. A
groundwater protection strategy is outlined in Section 9. Study recommendations are presented
in Section 10. A glossary of technical terms and abbreviations is presented in Section 11, and
references are presented in Section 12. Most of the figures for the study are presented in
11” x17” or 30” x36” format under separate cover so that these figures can be reviewed while
reading through the report.

Groundwater and Aquifer Characterization
Groundwater is a safer and cleaner form of water supply, when compared to surface water.
Understanding how groundwater moves through the Counties, and the factors that control this
movement will help to manage the resource.

Information from many different data sources, including the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of
Natural Resources, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Geologic Survey of Canada,
Water Survey Canada, Grey and Bruce Counties, the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority,


ii
                                                                                   Executive Summary



the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, local municipalities and local consultants has been
incorporated into a project database and GIS. The quality of the different sources of information
was evaluated and data that was deemed inaccurate was not included in subsequent analyses.

In addition to the information referred to above, the project team compiled a volume of previous
reports related to groundwater resources in Grey and Bruce Counties. These reports include local-
scale hydrogeologic analyses (completed in support of the development of municipal groundwater
supply wells, solid waste landfills, sanitary sewage works, and subdivision developments), First
          s
Engineer’ Reports, reports supporting Permit To Take Water applications, and regional-scale
assessments of groundwater resources within the Counties. These reports provide useful
information on the geology and hydrogeology of the study area, and are presented in the
References (Section 12).

As part of the regional analysis, maps were developed for the location and reliability of MOE
water wells (Figures 2.1 and 2.2), ground surface topography (Figure 2.3), and the surface
drainage and stream gauge locations (Figures 2.4A and B). The geology of Grey and Bruce
Counties was investigated and presented in the Physiography map (Figure 2.5), the Quaternary
geology map (Figure 2.6) and the bedrock geology and bedrock surface topography (Figures
2.7 and 2.8) maps.

Regional geologic cross-sections were developed to illustrate the bedrock and Quaternary
geology, topography, and their relationships across the study area. The location of the regional
cross sections was presented in Figure 2.9, and the cross-sections were presented in Figures
2.10 to 2.17. In particular, they show the parallel nature of the bedrock and ground surface
topography, the thinning nature of the overburden going from west to east, approaching the rim
of the Niagara Escarpment, and the distribution of sand and gravel units associated with the
Port Huron Moraine, in the south central portion of the study area. Details of the geology and its
relationship to the regional water table and hydrogeology are discussed throughout this report.

The nature of the overburden deposits in Grey and Bruce Counties was investigated and
presented in the depth to bedrock (Figure 2.18), and sand and gravel thickness (Figures 2.19)
maps. The hydrogeology of Grey and Bruce Counties was investigated and presented in the
water table surface (Figure 2.20), bedrock equipotentials (Figure 2.21), and vertical gradients
(Figure 2.22) maps. The water table elevation map and bedrock equipotential map show the
inferred regional groundwater flow directions in the overburden and bedrock aquifers, and the
recharge/discharge relationships that exist throughout the Counties.

The hydrogeology of Grey and Bruce Counties was conceptualized as a three-layered model
with, from top to bottom, a fine-grained overburden aquitard layer, a thin weathered bedrock
aquifer layer, and a thick unweathered bedrock aquifer. Details of the subsurface hydrogeologic
conditions in the Counties were determined by examining 8 regional cross-sections and many
local cross-sections. The aquifers of Grey and Bruce Counties are summarized in an
overburden aquifer map (Figure 2.23) and a bedrock aquifer map (Figure 2.24). This
conceptualization of regional hydrogeology was used as the basis for the development of the
WHPA models, which are discussed in Section 6. Specific capacity of municipal wells was
assessed, and presented in Figure 2.25, using data from pumping tests of at least a 24-hour
duration. Groundwater quality throughout the Counties was evaluated through a review of raw
                                         s
water quality presented in the Engineer’ Reports for the different municipal wells. Parameters
that were considered in this analysis include chloride, nitrate, fluoride, iron, hardness, and
turbidity. This groundwater quality assessment was presented in Figure 2.26.



                                                                                                  iii
Executive Summary



Finally, the analysis presented in this report provides a summary of regional groundwater and
aquifer characterization in Grey and Bruce Counties. To augment this analysis, four additional
maps were created at a 1:200,000 scale to present the groundwater and aquifer
characterization at a more detailed, larger scale. Figure 2.27 shows the study area, the location
of the WWIS wells that were used for the data analysis and the ground surface topography.
Figure 2.28 shows the regional Quaternary geology, and includes the overburden thickness
contours. Figure 2.29 shows the regional bedrock geology, and includes the bedrock geology
classes and bedrock topography contours. Figure 2.30 shows the regional overburden and
bedrock aquifers, and includes the reliable water wells within the study area (along with their
completion depth and geology), and the contours of sand and gravel thickness below the water
table as an indication of overburden aquifer locations.

Intrinsic Susceptibility Analysis
The susceptibility of an aquifer to contamination is a function of the susceptibility of its recharge
area to the infiltration of contaminants. Groundwater susceptibility can thus be defined as: the
tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the groundwater system
after introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer. Susceptibility is not an absolute
property, but a relative indication of where contamination may enter the subsurface. It is also
necessary to consider long-term effects on groundwater quality, perhaps over decades, in
carrying out a susceptibility analysis.

Intrinsic susceptibility for the uppermost significant aquifer (the water table aquifer) was
assessed using information contained within the MOE Water Well Information System and the
location of identified karst features in Grey and Bruce Counties. The approach followed the
method outlined in the MOE Technical Terms of Reference. This method considers the
thickness of the different geologic strata as well as their permeability through the use of a K-
factor. Polygons representing the identified karst areas (caves, sinkholes, sinking streams,
sinking lakes, and karst pavement) within the Counties were overlain, incorporated into the GIS
and given a high susceptibility value. Within the uppermost aquifer system, areas of low,
medium, and high susceptibility were identified using the MOE susceptibility classes (low (ISI >
80), medium (30 £ ISI £ 80) and high (ISI < 30)).

Figure 3.1 present the map of Intrinsic Susceptibility, which was interpolated across the entire
study area. In addition, a 1:200,000 map (Figure 3.2) was created on a 30” by 36” layouts to
show Intrinsic Susceptibility at a more detailed, larger scale, and includes the identified karst
areas and contaminant sources. High and medium susceptibility classes are the most important
to consider, and Figure 3.1 shows that a substantial portion of the study area is classified as
either high or medium susceptibility. The Bruce Peninsula is an area of medium to high
susceptibility as a result of the thin and discontinuous nature of the Quaternary cover material
providing little protection to the underlying bedrock. This is shown in the Canadian Parks
Service field investigation of karst features of the Upper Bruce Peninsula. The remainder of the
medium and high susceptibility areas trend from the base of the Bruce Peninsula to southern
Grey County and roughly correspond to the occurrence of the Guelph and Amabel Formations
underlying it. The higher susceptibility rating for these units is related to the fact that they are
generally more permeable than other bedrock units in the area.

Areas of low susceptibility occur mainly in the southwest portion of Bruce County, and
correspond to the clay and silt-rich Quaternary deposits of the Huron Slope. This fine-grained
surface material restricts the downward movement of infiltrating surface water, making the
underlying groundwater much less susceptible to associated contamination.



iv
                                                                                    Executive Summary



In areas of high susceptibility near municipal pumping wells, it is recommended that municipal
planning measures be developed to restrict development, or to require local-scale
hydrogeologic investigations that assess the vulnerability of the aquifer to contamination.

Groundwater Use Assessment
An improved understanding of groundwater use is essential to managing groundwater
resources across the counties, evaluating different municipal well capture zones, and
conducting a regional water budget. A regional groundwater use assessment was conducted
using information on municipal, communal, agricultural, private and industrial water taking. Data
for the groundwater use assessment was obtained from the MOE Permit to Take Water (PTTW)
                                                         s
database, municipal water supply reports (Engineer’ Reports), MOE Water Well Information
System (WWIS), and Certificates of Approval. Population estimates, which were used to
estimate domestic water use, were obtained from Statistics Canada. Land use information was
provided by the Counties (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). An analysis was completed to evaluate the
distribution and intensity of agricultural activities to assess potential impacts on groundwater
quality, and concentrated on the extent, intensity, proximity and nature of agricultural activities.

The aforementioned data was used to complete a water budget analysis of the study area, to
provide information about the quantity of groundwater currently being used in Grey and Bruce
Counties. An analysis of the Permits To Take Water shows that there are 422 permits in the
PTTW database and that these permits correspond to 553 water sources (wells, springs or
ponds). Of the 422 PTTW, there are 254 PTTW using groundwater, of which 168 are active
permits and 37 are large-scale users (having a maximum permitted rate of more than 200,000
L/day). Figure 4.3 presents the locations of the 254 groundwater permits in the Counties
classified by maximum permitted rate. A survey was completed of the large-scale users, and
municipal water works to gather information about actual water use. Based on maximum
permitted rate, groundwater use by large-scale users is 207,617 m3/day in the Counties.

Estimates of the rural population of the study area were used to determine rural domestic
groundwater use, which is 12,969 m3 /day. The Engineer's Reports were used to determine
municipal groundwater use, which is 18,614 m3/day. The PTTW database was used to estimate
communal and campground groundwater use, which is 2,971 m3/day. Census Canada data was
used to estimate agricultural groundwater use, which is 22,373 m3/day. A summary of the total
daily and yearly groundwater taking for Grey and Bruce Counties is as follows:

•   Large-scale User Groundwater Taking:            75.8 million m3 /year (207,617 m3/day)
•   Rural Groundwater Use:                           4.7 million m3/year ( 12,969 m3 /day)
•   Municipal Groundwater Taking:                    6.8 million m3/year ( 18,614 m3 /day)
•   Agricultural Groundwater Taking:                 8.2 million m3/year ( 22,373 m3 /day)
•   Water Supply (communal and campground)           1.1 million m3/year ( 2,971 m3 /day)
•   Total Groundwater Taking:                       96.6 million m3 /year (264,544 m3/day)

Subsequently, a water budget analysis was completed using information on Canadian Climate
Normals (1961-1990) from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Based on average recharge, the
water budget is summarized as follows:

•   Precipitation:                               8,483.0 million m3 /year
•   Evapotranspiration:                          5,140.0 million m3 /year
•   Recharge:                                      975.0 million m3 /year
•   Runoff:                                      2,368.0 million m3 /year



                                                                                                    v
Executive Summary




Recharge is, on average between 75 and 150 mm/year across the Counties, which results in
average groundwater recharge of approximately 975 million m 3/year. From this we see that the
combination of rural, municipal, communal and agricultural groundwater use (20.8 million
m3 /year) is approximately 2.1% of available recharge, and that permitted groundwater use by
large users (75.8 million m3 /year) is approximately 7.8% of available recharge. This means that
only a fraction (9.9%) of the available recharge is currently being used for water supply within
the Counties. However, actual water taking by large users is mostly unknown. It may be much
less than the permitted rate, but could be up to 4 times as large as the water takings of all other
groundwater uses combined. As such, it is the one use of groundwater within the Counties that
may pose a risk to the quantity of water available to public water supply, as well as water to
maintain baseflow in rivers.

In summary, on a regional-scale, there appears to be adequate groundwater available to meet
current and future needs. However, the analysis does not consider the effects that concentrated
water taking may have on the groundwater system or overall ecosystem health. Additional
analysis at a watershed or sub-watershed scale could provide more information about safe
groundwater yield and impacts that future development activities may have.

Contaminant Sources Inventory
There are many different types of potential threats to groundwater quality, which may include
organic chemicals, hydrocarbons (e.g. benzene in gasoline, TCE in solvents), inorganic cations
(e.g. iron, manganese), inorganic anions (chloride, nitrate), pathogens (bacteria, viruses), and
radionuclides (radon, strontium) (Fetter, 1999). It is important to know the location of potential
contaminant sources to help ensure the long-term sustainability of the groundwater resource.
This information can be used to identify areas where monitoring is required to safeguard
groundwater resources. Contaminant information is best stored and maintained in a database
that includes details about the potential contaminant source, its location (including address
where available), and information about the quality of the data and the accuracy of the reported
location. In the future, if a specific contaminant is identified in a domestic water well, the
database could be used to identify the possible source of the contaminants. Information about
the different potential contaminant sources throughout the Counties could also be used in the
development of future groundwater resources.

Groundwater contamination may occur from either point sources or non-point sources of
contamination. These terms generally describe the localization of the contaminant. A point
source is typically a small-scale contaminant source area, such as a leaky underground fuel
storage tank, or a landfill. Non-point sources, in contrast, are larger in scale and are typically
more diffuse than point source contaminants. Non-point sources are primarily related to land
use practices (fertilizer spreading, road salting), whereas point sources may be related to
localized contamination events (contaminant leaks or spills).

The objective of the potential contaminant inventory was to prepare an inventory of known and
potential sources of contaminants in Grey and Bruce Counties. This information was compiled
using existing databases and other information as discussed below. Data for the potential
contaminant sources inventory was obtained primarily from the Ministry of the Environment
(MOE). Included in this information from the MOE was a database of private and retail
underground fuel storage tanks from the Technical Standards and Safety Association (TSSA),
as well as information from the MOE on spill occurrences, PCB storage, landfills and
wastewater treatments plants in the Counties.



vi
                                                                                  Executive Summary



The results of the potential contaminant sources inventory are presented in Figure 5.1. There
were 1309 records in the MOE Contaminant Sources Database. Of these records, 702 were
identified as being within the study area, and of these, 237 that were located on the map (95
with UTM coordinates, 142 with addresses information). In addition, other information sources
were used to identify the landfills and wastewater treatment plants within the study area, which
added 154 potential contaminant sources to the database (Figure 5.1). Abandoned boreholes
are not potential contaminant sources, but they do provide potential pathways for surface
contamination to reach lower hydrogeologic units. An analysis of the WWIS revealed 526
potential abandoned boreholes within the study area (Figure 5.2).

As part of the WHPA Contaminant Assessment, maps were generated of each steady state
capture zone showing the location of the WHPA and the regional road that transect the WHPA.
Subsequently, each county road was driven as part of a “     windscreen” survey of the WHPAs to
identify any potential contaminant sources that were not part of the regional Contaminant
Sources Inventory. This analysis added 339 potential sources to the MOE database (Figure
5.3). To augment these analyses, a map was created at a 1:200,000 scale (Figure 5.4) to
present all of the potential contaminated sites at a more detailed, larger scale.

It is clear that many different potential contaminant sources exist throughout the study area.
However, there are concentrations in the more developed areas. The inventory has been
compiled within the project database, and should be maintained and updated as additional
information is collected regarding specific contaminant sources and the locations of records that
have been located with poor confidence.

Wellhead Protection Area Groundwater Modeling
Numerical models are developed, calibrated, and used to delineate the WHPA boundaries for
the municipal wells in 45 systems that include:

• Township of Georgian Bluffs (Shallow Lake, Forest Heights, Maple Crest and Pottawatomi
  Village);
• Township of Chatsworth (Chatsworth and Walter’ Falls);
                                                   s
• Municipality of West Grey (Neustadt and Durham)
• Township of Southgate (Dundalk);
• Town of Hanover (Hanover);
• Municipality of Grey Highlands (Markdale, Feversham and Kimberley Springs);
• Municipality of Arran-Elderslie (Tara and Chesley);
• Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Huron Woods, Forbes, Trask, Robins, Winburk,
  Fiddlehead, Fedy, Cammidge & Collins, Gremik, Foreman and Thomson);
• Municipality of Brockton (Lake Rosiland, Chepstow);
• Municipality of Huron-Kinloss (Ripley, Lucknow, Point Clark, Blairs Grove, Murdock Glen,
  Huronville, and Whitechurch);
• Municipality of South Bruce (Mildmay and Teeswater); and,
• Municipality of Kincardine (Tiverton, Underwood, Scott Point, Kinhuron, Craig Estrick, Lake
  Huron Highlands and Point Head Estates).

The original Terms of Reference indicated that WHPA modeling was to be completed on the
Town of Saugeen Shores municipal system. However, the Town recently completed a pipeline
to connect the Miramichi Estates and Miramichi Shores developments to the existing surface
water supply system. Also, the Geeson Avenue well in Walkerton was taken out of service.
Markdale decommissioned one municipal well, and added 2 new municipal wells to the


                                                                                                 vii
Executive Summary



groundwater supply system. As such, 45 of the 48 systems in the Terms of Reference were
modeled.

All of these models were developed using Visual MODFLOW, and calibrated to steady-state
water levels in the wells from the Water Well Information System database. These calibrated
models were used to delineate WHPA boundaries for each of the municipal wells. The WHPA
results are shown is a series of WHPA maps for each Municipality (Figures 6.1 thru 6.25). In
addition, a map was created at a 1:200,000 scale (Figure 6.26) to present all of the WHPA
boundaries at a more detailed, larger scale. They show the 50-day, 2-year, 10-year and 25-year
time-of-travel capture zone. These results represent the current best estimate of the different
capture zones. However, their sizes and shapes will change in the future as wells are added
and removed, and as water demands change. As additional information becomes available, the
validity of the different models should be evaluated to help ensure that protective measures
continue to be directed in the appropriate areas. Incorporating additional geologic and pumping
information into the model will not be difficult now that the models have been constructed and
calibrated. The timing of future model review should be timed to coincide with the development
and decommissioning of well fields in each of the different municipalities.

Integration of Study Results
As part of this groundwater study, three data layers were developed that have an impact on the
groundwater quality that is withdrawn at each municipal well. These layers are the aquifer
Intrinsic Susceptibility (Section 3), the potential contaminant sources inventory (Section 5), and
the WHPA boundaries (Section 6). Integrating these themes in a GIS allows for simultaneous
consideration of three important parameters that affect groundwater quality protection. GIS is
widely used as a comprehensive system capable of assembling, storing, manipulating, and
displaying geographically referenced information.

The description of the susceptibility of each municipal well to contamination, from the Engineer’s
Report for each wellfield, was combined with the WHPA boundaries and the Intrinsic
Susceptibility results. For each wellfield, a map was developed (Figures 7.1 thru 7.22) to include
these components of groundwater protection, and a discussion was provided to integrate the
vulnerability of the wellfields and the extent of the recharge areas for the wells (WHPAs). Many
of the municipal wellfield are located in areas of medium to high susceptibility. In some cases it
is due to a lack of low permeability overburden above the bedrock aquifer. In other cases it is
due to thicker units of high permeability overburden material, which does not provide adequate
protection for the aquifer. However, regardless of the reason, areas of high and medium intrinsic
susceptibility found within WHPA boundaries are very sensitive zones from a groundwater
protection perspective, and should be addressed during the development of provisions to
implement groundwater protection.

Public Consultation
To transfer study information to the public and solicit their input, a variety of different public
consultation strategies were used. At the onset of the study it was understood that public
involvement and subsequent buy-in to the importance of the Groundwater Study and its findings
would be beneficial. A more environmentally aware public that appreciates the need to protect
their groundwater resource will be more likely to endorse and support future groundwater
protection strategies. Information from members of the community also provided insight about
specific water resource issues that were of concern to them. This information was used during
the development of the groundwater protection strategy.




viii
                                                                                    Executive Summary



To consult the public and make study results available to local stakeholders, the following
specific strategies were implemented throughout the duration of the project:
• News releases to local newspaper and media outlets about groundwater issues in Grey and
   Bruce Counties and details related to the project progression;
• Two (2) public meetings timed to present preliminary results from the study the final study
   results; and,
• Development of a project website to transfer project information to the public and to convey
   study progress and final results (www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca).

Section 8 of the report includes a discussion of each strategy applied during the study.

Groundwater Protection Strategy
A Groundwater Protection Strategy is a program of risk reduction to sustain the groundwater
resource, both as a source of drinking water supplies and as an integral component of the
ecosystem. The strategy can incorporate a number of different tools, which may include a
combination of land use policies, regulatory controls, best management practices, public
education, groundwater monitoring, land acquisition, conservation easements and spills
contingency planning.

The protection of water quality and quantity depends on the collective actions of individuals,
private industry, government and other agencies. Rural property owners are responsible for
their own well and septic tank maintenance. Municipalities are responsible for the provision and
maintenance of a safe drinking water supply in urban areas and for proper sewage collection
and treatment. Conservation Authorities play an important role in water conservation through
watershed planning and the protection of wetlands. Private industry is intrinsically responsible
for best management practices in the utilization of water for the goods and services they
provide. The farm industry in particular, has a vested interest in securing an adequate supply of
water for livestock and crop watering.

Policies, such as those in a municipal Official Plan, serve to identify the public interest in water
quality and quantity. An Official Plan may establish goals, set objectives for water protection
(aquifer and well head protection), and provide the framework for land use development and
implementation measures. The policies may also provide the rationale for the use of other
planning tools such as zoning and site plan control. These are regulatory mechanisms that may
be used to control development on a lot-by-lot basis, or an area-wide basis. Planning
applications, such as development or land use changes, largely drive the implementation
process.

Many tools are not retroactive and they do not enable a municipality to rectify a pollution
problem by closing down an operation or forcing the relocation of an existing land use that may
have the potential to contaminate an aquifer.

Best management practices may apply to a homeowner in the use and storage of solvents,
pesticides, and the disposal of household hazardous wastes. For the agricultural industry it may
include measures such as stream buffering from cattle grazing and the care with which manure
and other fertilizers are applied.

The municipality may also utilize other statutes to complement the land use controls under the
Planning Act. The Nutrient Management Act (2001), and the associated regulations, for
example, set out the requirements for the preparation of nutrient management plans and the



                                                                                                   ix
Executive Summary



control of intensive livestock operations. The Municipal Act may be used to enact site alteration
or nutrient management by-laws.

Raising public awareness, through public educational programs, can have a major impact on
water protection and may be more important than enforcement measures. It is through the
voluntary actions and practices of people on a day-by-day basis that will help protect water
resources (i.e. proper use, storage and disposal of fuels, solvents, and pesticides, regular water
well maintenance, installation of water saving plumbing fixtures, etc.). Municipalities can work
towards developing a ‘   water ethic’ in their communities. This means instilling a collective
awareness, responsibility, and commitment to protect water on an ongoing basis.

Specific recommendations about a groundwater protection plan that can be considered
appropriate for Grey and Bruce Counties are described in Section 9, and include:

    • That an organizational structure be established to oversee and coordinate the
      implementation of water protection measures;
    • That land use planning documents be amended to establish the policy and regulatory
      framework for instituting effect land use controls for future development;
    • That a spills and contingency plan be initiated early in the implementation process;
    • That provision is made for the development and maintenance of a database that can be
      used in making decisions and incorporating new information in response to development
      and monitoring activities;
    • That a public education and outreach program be developed for the ongoing education
      of the public, the operation of municipal water supply infrastructure and the
      administration and enforcement of regulatory and voluntary controls for water protection;
      and,
    • That Best Management Practices be utilized where feasible as measures to minimize
      the potential contamination of private and municipal water supply sources.

Recommendations
The Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study was undertaken to develop an improved
understanding of local groundwater conditions within the context of larger regional groundwater
flow systems. This was achieved through an analysis and integration of many sources of
information on the geology, hydrogeology, and water taking practices throughout the study area.
This study has provided a great deal of results on the characterization of the aquifer of the
Counties, the Intrinsic Susceptibility of these aquifers, the WHPA boundaries that exist around
municipal wellfields and the potential Contaminants that may impact the groundwater that
supplies them. As such, a number of recommendations arise from this study, the most important
of which are:

Recommendation 1: MOE Inspection of New Wells
It is recommended that all new municipal wells be inspected by the MOE to improve the
reliability of the information in the WWIS database, and to improve future hydrogeologic
assessments that use this database. It is also recommended that these new wells be
georeferenced as a check on location accuracy.

Recommendation 2: Investigate Karst Along the Niagara Escarpment
Karst features are an important component of the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping. As a result,
they should be considered during the development of a Groundwater Protection Strategy, and




x
                                                                                    Executive Summary



further study on the distribution of karst areas should be completed, to better understand their
importance in groundwater vulnerability along the Niagara Escarpment.

Recommendation 3: Incorporating ISI Results into the Groundwater Protection Strategy
Medium and high susceptibility classes are the most important classes to consider in terms of
aquifer vulnerability. As a result, it is recommended that medium and high susceptibility areas
be considered as part of a Groundwater Protection Strategy.

Recommendation 4: Localized Understanding of Groundwater Use Impacts
A water budget of the Counties showed that, at a regional-scale, there is an abundance of
groundwater (9.9% of the available recharge is being used for water supply). However, further
investigation at a more local, sub-watershed scale should be considered. This may be
completed in combination with watershed-based groundwater models, which can be used to
delineate sensitive recharge areas that supply baseflow discharge, provide estimates of aquifer
yield, optimize the location for the development of new well supplies, and aid in the evaluation of
new PTTW applications..

Recommendation 5: Better Tracking of Actual Water Use for PTTW Permits
Permits to Take Water (PTTW) are contained within a different database than the Water Well
Information System (WWIS) database, and actual groundwater use is unavailable. To facilitate
better permit tracking, the information in the Permit to Take Water database should be linked to
the WWIS.

Recommendation 6: Further Investigation of Potential Contaminant Sources
Further investigation of potential contaminant sources within the study area is recommended.
This will provide a more complete database of potential contaminant sources within the
Counties. As additional information is collected or becomes available, the information contained
in the database of potential contaminant sources should be updated.

Recommendation 7: Use of the MODFLOW Models to Update WHPA Results
MODFLOW models were developed and calibrated to local conditions to define the WHPA
boundaries for 45 municipal groundwater systems in Grey and Bruce Counties. However,
groundwater use by each municipality changes over time due to changes in development,
wellfield configuration, well pumping rates, and the development of new groundwater wells. It is
recommended that these groundwater models be used to update WHPA boundaries as new
information becomes available.

Recommendation 8: Develop and Implement a Groundwater Protection Strategy
It is recommended that Grey and Bruce Counties, in consultation with the MOE, develop and
implement a Groundwater Protection Strategy that incorporates some of the different
components described in the report. The importance of groundwater to Grey and Bruce
Counties underscores the need to manage the resource. The Groundwater Protection Strategy
should be developed to address the following components:

•   Ensure that the data is properly managed;
•   Use public education to foster groundwater protection;
•   Acknowledge and protect Wellhead Protection Areas;
•   Acknowledge and protect areas of medium and high vulnerability;
•   Monitor groundwater quality;
•   Encourage the use of Best Management Practices;


                                                                                                   xi
Executive Summary



•     Address well abandonment;
•     Ensure that spill and contingency planning is in place;
•     Incorporate groundwater protection planning into Official Plans; and,
•     Encourage better enforcement of existing rules and regulations.

Specific information regarding each of the recommendations is provided in Section 10 of the
Report.




xii
Contents

Section                                                   Page

1    Introduction                                          1-1
     1.1   Study Objectives                                1-2
     1.2   Multi -Barrier Approach to Water Protection     1-3
     1.3   Notes Regarding the Regional Mapping            1-3
     1.4   Report Organization                             1-4
2    Regional Groundwater and Aquifer Characterization     2-1
     2.1   Overview                                        2-1
     2.2   Methodology and Data Sources                    2-1
           2.2.1     Climate                               2-1
           2.2.2     Topography                            2-2
           2.2.3     Surface Water                         2-2
           2.2.4     Geology                               2-2
           2.2.5     Hydrogeology                          2-2
           2.2.6     Data Reliability                      2-4
           2.2.7     Previous Studies                      2-4
     2.3   Surface Features                                2-5
           2.3.1     Surface Topography                    2-5
           2.3.2     Surface Water                         2-5
           2.3.3     Stream Flow                           2-5
     2.4   Geology                                         2-6
           2.4.1     Quaternary Geology                    2-6
           2.4.2     Bedrock Geology                       2-8
           2.4.3     Bedrock Top ography                  2-10
           2.4.4     Karst Features                       2-10
           2.4.5     Regional Cross -Sections             2-11
           2.4.6     Overburden Thickness                 2-12
     2.5   Hydrogeology                                   2-12
           2.5.1     Water Table                          2-13
           2.5.2     Bedrock Equipotentials               2-13
           2.5.3     Groundwater Flow                     2-13
           2.5.4     Recharge and Discha rge Areas        2-13
           2.5.5     Regional Aquifers                    2-14
           2.5.6     Specific Capacity                    2-15
           2.5.7     Regional Groundwater Quality         2-15
     2.6   Regional Aquifer Characterization              2-17
     2.7   Summary of Regional Aquifer Characterization   2-17
3    Intrinsic Susceptibility Analysis                     3-1
     3.1   Overview                                        3-1
     3.2   Methodology and Data Sources                    3-2
     3.3   Intrinsic Susceptibility Results                3-2
     3.4   Summary of Intrinsic Susceptibility Analysis    3-3
4    Groundwater Use Assessment                            4-1
     4.1   Overview                                        4-1
     4.2   Methodology and Data Sources                    4-1
     4.3   Population and Land Use                         4-1



                                                             xiii
Contents

            4.3.1    Population                                               4-1
            4.3.2    Land Use                                                 4-2
            4.3.3    Agricultural Land Use                                    4-2
      4.4   Groundwater Use Assessment Results                                4-5
            4.4.1    Rural Domestic Groundwater Use                           4-6
            4.4.2    Municipal Groundwater Use                                4-7
            4.4.3    Communal and Campground Groundwater Use                  4-9
            4.4.4    Industrial, Commercial and Dewatering Groundwater Use    4-9
            4.4.5    Agricultural Groundwater Use                            4-10
            4.4.6    Other Groundwater Use                                   4-11
            4.4.7    Total Groundwater Use                                   4-12
      4.5   Water Budget Analysis                                            4-12
            4.5.1    The Hydrologic Cycle                                    4-12
            4.5.2    Regional Water Budget Analysis                          4-13
            4.5.3    Water Budget Summary                                    4-15
      4.6   Summary of Groundwater Use                                       4-16
5     Contaminant Sources Inventory                                          5-1
      5.1   Overview                                                          5-1
      5.2   Methodology and Data Sources                                      5-1
      5.3   Contaminant Sources Inventory Results                             5-2
            5.3.1    Fuel Storage Sites                                       5-2
            5.3.2    PCB Storage Sites                                        5-3
            5.3.3    Contaminant Spills Sites                                 5-3
            5.3.4    Certificate of Approval Sites                            5-3
            5.3.5    Landfill Si tes                                          5-3
            5.3.6    Wastewater Treatment Plants                              5-3
            5.3.7    Abandoned Boreholes                                      5-3
      5.4   WHPA Contaminant Source Assessment Results                        5-4
      5.5   Summary of the Contaminant Sources Inventory                      5-5
6     Wellhead Protection Area Modeling                                      6-1
      6.1   Method ology                                                      6-1
            6.1.1     Conceptual Model Development                            6-1
            6.1.2     Numerical Model Selection                               6-2
            6.1.3     Model Grid                                              6-2
            6.1.4     Model Parameters                                        6-2
            6.1.5     Model Boundary Conditions                               6-3
            6.1.6     Model Calibration                                       6-3
            6.1.7     Measures of Calibration                                 6-4
            6.1.8     Wellhead Protection Area Delineation                    6-4
            6.1.9     WHPA Uncertainty Analysis Method                        6-5
            6.1.10    Limitations of WHPA Modeling Results                    6-6
            6.1.11    Overview of Model Areas                                 6-6
      6.2   Township of Georgian Bluffs                                       6-8
            6.2.1     Local Aquifer Characteriz ation                         6-8
            6.2.2     Municipal Well Systems                                  6-9
            6.2.3     Model Design (Shallow Lake, Owen Sound)                6-10
            6.2.4     Model Results                                          6-11
      6.3   Township of Chatsworth                                           6-12
            6.3.1     Local Aquifer Characterization                         6-12


xiv
Contents

           6.3.2      Municipal Well Systems                           6-13
           6.3.3                                       s
                      Model Des ign (Chatsworth, Walter’ Falls)        6-14
           6.3.4      Model Results                                    6-14
    6.4    Municipality of West Grey                                   6-16
           6.4.1      Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-16
           6.4.2      Municipal Well Systems                           6-17
           6.4.3      Model Design (Neustadt, Durham)                  6-18
           6.4.4      Model Results                                    6-19
    6.5    Township of Southgate                                       6-20
           6.5.1      Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-20
           6.5.2      Municipal Well Systems                           6-21
           6.5.3      Model Design (Dundalk)                           6-21
           6.5.4      Model Results                                    6-22
    6.6    Town of Hanover                                             6-23
           6.6.1      Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-23
           6.6.2      Mu nicipal Well Systems                          6-24
           6.6.3      Model Design (Hanover)                           6-24
           6.6.4      Model Results                                    6-25
    6.7    Municipality of Grey Highlands                              6-26
           6.7.1      Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-26
           6.7.2      Municipal Well Systems                           6-28
           6.7.3      Model Design (Markdale, Feversham, Kim berley)   6-28
           6.7.4      Model Results                                    6-29
    6.8    Municipality of Arran -Elderslie                            6-31
           6.8.1      Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-31
           6.8.2      Municipal Well Systems                           6-32
           6.8.3      Model Design (Tara, Chesley)                     6-33
           6.8.4      Model Results                                    6-33
    6.9    Town of South Bruce Peninsula                               6-35
           6.9.1      Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-35
           6.9.2      Municipal Well Systems                           6-36
           6.9.3      Model Design (Sauble Beach)                      6-38
           6.9.4      Model Results                                    6-38
    6.10   Municipality of Brockton                                    6-40
           6.10.1     Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-40
           6.10.2     Munici pal Well Systems                          6-41
           6.10.3     Model Design (Chepstow)                          6-42
           6.10.4     Model Results                                    6-42
    6.11   Township of Huron -Kinloss                                  6-44
           6.11.1     Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-44
           6.11.2     Municipal Well Systems                           6-45
           6.11.3     Model Design (Huron West, Ripley, Lucknow)       6-46
           6.11.4     Model Results                                    6-47
    6.12   Municipality of South Bruce                                 6-49
           6.12.1     Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-49
           6.12.2     Municipal Well Systems                           6-50
           6.12.3     Model Design (Mildmay, Teeswater)                6-51
           6.12.4     Model Results                                    6-52
    6.13   Municipality of Kincardine                                  6-53
           6.13.1     Local Aquifer Characterization                   6-53
           6.13.2     Municipal Well Systems                           6-54


                                                                          xv
Contents

           6.13.3   Model Design (Kincardine North, Kincardine South)   6-55
           6.13.4   Model Results                                       6-56
      6.14 Summary of WHPA Modeling                                     6-57
7     Integration of Study Results                                      7-1
      7.1  Overview                                                      7-1
      7.2  Methodology and Data Sources                                  7-1
           7.2.1      Intrinsic Susceptibility Overlay                   7-1
           7.2.2      Potential Contaminant Sources Overlay              7-1
           7.2.3      Wellhead Protection Area Overlay                   7-1
      7.3 Township of Georgian Bluffs                                    7-2
           7.3.1      Shallow Lake Water System                          7-2
           7.3.2      Forest Heights Water System                        7-2
           7.3.3      Maple Crest Subdivision Water System               7-3
           7.3.4      Pottawatomi Village Water System                   7-3
      7.4   Township of Chatsworth                                       7-4
           7.4.1      Chatsworth System                                  7-4
           7.4.2              s
                      Walter’ Falls Syst em                              7-5
      7.5 Municipality of West Grey                                      7-5
           7.5.1      Neustadt Groundwater Supply System                 7-5
           7.5.2      Durham Municipal System                            7-6
      7.6 Township of Southgate                                          7-6
           7.6.1      Village of Dundalk Water System                    7-7
      7.7 Town of Hanover                                                7-7
           7.7.1      Ha nover System                                    7-8
      7.8 Municipality of Grey Highlands                                 7-8
           7.8.1      Village of Markdale System                         7-8
           7.8.2      Feversham Water Supply System                      7-9
           7.8.3      Kimberley Springs System                          7-10
      7.9 Municipality of Arran -Elderslie                              7-10
           7.9.1      Tara System                                       7-10
           7.9.2      Chesley System                                    7-11
      7.10 Town of South Bruce Peninsula                                7-11
           7.10.1     Fiddlehead System                                 7-11
           7.10.2     Cammidge & Collins System                         7-12
           7.10.3     Robins System                                     7-12
           7.10.4     Forbes System                                     7-12
           7.10.5     Trask System                                      7-13
           7.10.6     Thomson System                                    7-13
           7.10.7     Winburk System                                    7-13
           7.10.8     Fedy System                                       7-13
           7.10.9     Gremik System                                     7-14
           7.10.10 Huron Woods System                                   7-14
           7.10.11 Foreman System                                       7-14
      7.11 Municipality of Brockton                                     7-15
           7.11.1     Chepstow System                                   7-15
           7.11.2     Lake Rosalind System                              7-15
      7.12 Township of Hur on-Kinloss                                   7-16
           7.12.1     Village of Ripley System                          7-16
           7.12.2     Huronville South System                           7-17
           7.12.3     Murdock Glen System                               7-17


xvi
Contents

          7.12.4     Blairs Grove System                                        7-17
          7.12.5     Point Clark System                                         7-18
          7.12.6     Lucknow System                                             7-18
          7.12.7     Whitechurch System                                         7-19
     7.13 Municipality of South Bruce                                           7-19
          7.13.1     Mildmay Water System                                       7-19
          7.13.2     Teeswater Water System                                     7-20
     7.14 Municipality of Kincardine                                            7-20
          7.14.1     Tiverton Well Supply                                       7-20
          7.14.2     Kinhuron Well Supply                                       7-21
          7.14.3     Craig-Eskrick Well Supply                                  7-21
          7.14.4     Lake Huron Highlands Well Supply                           7-21
          7.14.5     Port Head Estates Well Supply                              7-22
          7.14.6     Underwood Well Supply                                      7-22
          7.14.7     Scott Point Well Supply                                    7-22
     7.15 Summary                                                               7-22
8    Public Consultation                                                        8-1
     8.1    Methodology                                                          8-1
     8.2    Media News Relea ses                                                 8-1
     8.3    Public Meetings                                                      8-1
     8.4    Study Website (www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca)                  8-2
     8.5    Summary                                                              8-2
9    Groundwater Protection Management Strategy                                 9-1
     9.1    Introduction                                                         9-1
     9.2    Groundwater Protection Strategy App roach                            9-4
     9.3    Experience in Other Jurisdictions                                    9-6
            9.3.1      Oak Ridges Moraine (Ontario)                              9-6
            9.3.2      New Brunswick                                             9-6
            9.3.3      Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Ontario)               9-6
            9.3.4      County of Oxford (Ontario)                                9-7
            9.3.5      Alberta, Newfoundland & Labrador, Prince Edward Island    9-7
            9.3.6      Nova Scotia                                               9-7
            9.3.7      The United States                                         9-7
     9.4    Developing a Groundwater Protection Strategy                         9-8
     9.5    Summary                                                             9-16
10   Recommendations                                                            10-1
     10.1   Groundwater Protection Strategy Recommendatio ns                    10-1
     10.2   Groundwater and Aquifer Characterization Recommendations            10-1
     10.3   Groundwater Intrinsic Susceptibility Recommendations                10-2
     10.4   Groundwater Use Assessment Recommendations                          10-2
     10.5   Potential Contaminant Sources Inventory Recommendations             10-2
     10.6   WHPA Specific Recommendations                                       10-3
     10.7   Groundwater Protection Strategy Recommendations                     10-3
11   Glossary                                                                   11-1
     11.1 Glossary                                                              11-1
     11.2 List of Acronyms                                                      11-4
     11.3 Units of Measure                                                      11-5



                                                                                  xvii
Contents

12      References                                                 12-1
        12.1 General Ref erences - Regional Hydrogeology           12-1
        12.2 Specific References - By County (Municipality)        12-2
             12.2.1    Bruce County - (Arran-Elderslie)            12-2
             12.2.2    Bruce County - (Brockton)                   12-2
             12.2.3    Bruce County - (Huron-Kinloss)              12-3
             12.2.4    Bruce County - (Kincardine)                 12-4
             12.2.5    Bruce County - (Northern Bruce Peninsula)   12-5
             12.2.6    Bruce County - (Saugeen Shores)             12-6
             12.2.7    Bruce County - (South Bruce)                12-7
             12.2.8    Bruce County - (South Bruce Peninsula)      12-7
             12.2.9    Grey County - (Chatsworth)                  12-9
             12.2.10 Grey County - (Georgian Bluffs)               12-10
             12.2.11 Grey County - (Grey Highlands)                12-12
             12.2.12 Grey County - (Hanover)                       12-14
             12.2.13 Grey County - (Meaford)                       12-14
             12.2.14 Grey County - (Owen Sound)                    12-15
             12.2.15 Grey County - (Southgate)                     12-15
             12.2.16 Grey County - (The Blue Mountains)            12-16
             12.2.17 Grey County - (West Grey)                     12-17


Appendices

A        ISI Process Sheet
B        Results of the Survey of Large Groundwater Users
C        Results of the Survey of Municipal Groundwater Users
D        Contaminant Source Assessment Form
E        WHPA Model Calibration Graphs
F        Municipal Well Information
G        Press Releases
H        Sample WHPA Ordinance




xviii
Contents

List of Tables

Table 2.1    Sources of Information and Data Layers                                   2-1
Table 2.2    Stream Gauging Stations                                                  2-6
Table 2.3    Summary of Quaternary Deposits and Events in the Study Area              2-7
Table 2.4    Bedrock Geology Underlying the Study Area                                2-9
Table 4.1    Population Estimates of Grey and Bruce Counties By Municipality          4-2
Table 4.2    Agricultural Analysis and Characterization of Bruce County               4-4
Table 4.3    Agricultural Analysis and Characterization of Grey County                4-4
Table 4.4    Population Statistics by Municipality and Watershed                      4-6
Table 4.5    Rural Groundwater Use by Municipality and Watershed                      4-7
Table 4.6    Municipal Groundwater Use by Mun icipality and Watershed                 4-8
Table 4.7    Large-scale Water Users Survey Results                                  4-10
Table 4.8    Agricultural Groundwater Use by Municipality and Watershed              4-11
Table 4.9    Total Groundwater Use by Municipality and Watershed                     4-12
Table 4.10   Clim ate Data for Grey and Bruce Counties (1961 to 1990)                4-14
Table 4.11   Water Budget Summary                                                    4-15
Table 5.1    Potential Contaminant Sources                                            5-2
Table 5.2    WHPA Contaminant Assessment Results                                      5-4
Table 6.1    Model Hydrogeologic Paramet er Values                                    6-3
Table 6.2    WHPA Models by Municipality and Municipal Well System                    6-7
Table 6.3    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Georgian Bluffs)         6-11
Table 6.4    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Chatsworth)              6-15
Table 6.5    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (West Grey)               6-18
Table 6.6    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Dundalk)                 6-22
Table 6.7    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Hanover)                 6-25
Table 6.8    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Grey Highlands)          6-29
Table 6.9    Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Arran -Elderslie)        6-34
Table 6.10   Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (South Bruce Peninsula)   6-38
Table 6.11   Calibrated Values of Hyd rogeologic Properties (Brockton)               6-42
Table 6.12   Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (Huron -Kinloss)          6-47
Table 6.13   Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properties (South Bruce)             6-51
Table 6.14   Calibrated Values of Hydrogeologic Properti es (Kincardine)             6-56
Table 9.1    Summary of Groundwater Resource Management Issues                        9-2
Table 9.2    Groundwater Resource Management Tools                                    9-2
Table 9.3    Groundwater Protection Strategy: Organizational Structure                9-9
Table 9.4    Groundwater P rotection Strategy: Data Management                        9-9
Table 9.5    Groundwater Protection Strategy: Education                              9-10
Table 9.6    Groundwater Protection Strategy: Wellhead Protection Areas              9-12
Table 9.7    Groundwater Protection Strategy: High Aquifer Vulnerable Ar eas         9-12
Table 9.8    Groundwater Protection Strategy: Monitoring                             9-13
Table 9.9    Groundwater Protection Strategy: Best Management Practices              9-13
Table 9.10   Groundwater Protection Strategy: Spill and Contingency Planning         9-15




                                                                                        xix
Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1.1     Study Area
Figure 1.2     Features of the Study Area
Figure 1.3     A Multi -Barrier Approach to Water Protection
Figure 2.1     MOE Well Reliability
Figure 2.2     Well Locations and Completion
Figure 2.3     Ground Surface Elevation
Figure 2.4A    Surface Drainage
Figure 2.4B    Stream Gauge Locations
Figure 2.5     Quaternary Geology
Figure 2.6     Grey-Bruce Physiography
Figure 2.7     Bedrock Geology
Figure 2.8     Bedrock Surface Elevation
Figure 2.9     Regional Cross Section Locations
Figure 2.10    Regional Cross Section A -A’
Figure 2.1 1   Regional Cross Section B -B’
Figure 2.12    Regional Cross Section C -C’
Figure 2.13    Regional Cross Section D -D’
Figure 2.14    Regional Cross Section E -E’
Figure 2.15    Regional Cross Section F -F’
Figure 2.16    Regional Cross Section G -G’
Figure 2.17    Regional Cross Section H -H’
Figure 2.18    Overburden Thickness
Figure 2.19    Sand and Gravel Thickness
Figure 2.20    Water Table Surface
Figure 2.21    Bedrock Potentiometric Surface
Figure 2.22    Vertical Gradients
Figure 2.23    Overburden Aquifers
Figure 2.24    Bedrock Aquifers
Figure 2.25    Specific Capacity of Wells
Figure 2.26    Water Quality in Selected Municipal Wells
Figure 2.27    Regional Groundwater Study Area
Figure 2.28    Regional Overburden Thickness and Quaternary Geology Map
Figure 2.29    Regional Bedrock Geology Map
Figure 2.30    Regional Aquifers Map
Figure 3.1     Shallow Intrinsic Susceptibility
Figure 3.2     Regional Intrinsic Susceptibility Map
Figure 4.1     County of Bruce Land Use
Figure 4.2     County of Grey Land Use
Figure 4.3     Permits to take water
Figure 4.4     The Hydrologic Cycle
Figure 5.1     Potential Contaminant Sources
Figure 5.2     Abandoned Borehole Locations
Figure 5.3     WHPA Assessment Results
Figure 5.4     Regional Potential Contaminant Sites Map
Figure 6.1     WHPA Model Boundaries
Figure 6.2     Township of Georgian Bluffs - Owen Sound and Sha llow Lake Model s
Figure 6.3 A   Township of Georgian Bluffs - Forest Heights Cross -Sections
Figure 6.3 B   Township of Georgian Bluffs - Pottawatomi Cross -Sections
Figure 6.3 C   Township of Georgian Bluffs - Shallow Lake Cross -Sections


xx
Contents

Figure 6.4 A    Township of Chatsworth - Chatsworth Model
Figure 6.4 B    Township of Chatsworth - Walter's Falls Model
Figure 6.5 A    Township of Chatsworth - Walter's Falls Cross -Sections
Figure 6.5 B    Township of Chatsworth - Chatsworth Cross -Sections
Figure 6.6 A    Municipality of West Grey - Durham Model
Figure 6.6 B    Municipality of West Grey - Neustadt Model
Figure 6.7 A    Municipality of West Grey - Durham Cross -Sections
Figure 6.7 B    Municipality of West Grey - Neustadt Cross -Sections
Figure 6.8      Township of Southgate - Dundalk Model
Figure 6.9      Township of Southgate - Dundalk Cross -Sections
Figure 6.10     Town of Hanover - Hanover Model
Figure 6.11     Town of Hanover - Hanover Cross -Sections
Figure 6.12 A   Municipality of Grey Highlands - Markdale Model
Figure 6.12 B   Municipality of Grey Hig hlands - Feversham Model
Figure 6.12 C   Municipality of Grey Highlands - Kimberley Model
Figure 6.13 A   Municipality of Grey Highlands - Markdale Cross -Sections
Figure 6.13 B   Municipality of Grey Highlands - Feversham Cross -Sections
Figure 6.13 C   Municipal ity of Grey Highlands - Kimberley Cross -Sections
Figure 6.14 A   Municipality of Arran -Elderslie - Tara Model
Figure 6.14 B   Municipality of Arran -Elderslie - Chesley Model
Figure 6.15 A   Municipality of Arran -Elderslie - Tara Cross -Sections
Figure 6.15 B   Mu nicipality of Arran -Elderslie - Chesley Cross -Sections
Figure 6.16     Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Sauble Beach Model
Figure 6.17 A   Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Cammidge&Collins -Fiddlehead Cross -Sections
Figure 6.17 B   Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Fiddlehead and Gremik Cross -Sections
Figure 6.17 C   Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Foreman and Huron Woods Cross -Sections
Figure 6.17 D   Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Huron Woods and Foreman Cross -Sections
Figure 6.17 E   Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Fedy and Forbes Cross -Sections
Figure 6.17 F   Town of South Bruce Peninsula - Trask -Winburk Cross -Section
Figure 6.18     Municipality of Brockton - Chepstow Model
Figure 6.19 A   Municipality of Brockton - Chepstow Cross -Sections
Figure 6.19 B   Municipality of B rockton - Lake Rosalind Cross -Sections
Figure 6.19 C   Municipality of Brockton - Walkerton Cross -Sections
Figure 6.20 A   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Huron West and Ripley Models
Figure 6.20 B   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Lucknow Model
Figure 6.21 A   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Murdock Glen -Huronville Cross -Sections
Figure 6.21 B   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Huron -Kinloss Cross -Sections
Figure 6.21 C   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Lucknow Cross -Sections
Figure 6.21 D   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Point Clark and Blairs Grove Cross -Sections
Figure 6.21 E   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Ripley Cross -Sections
Figure 6.21 F   Township of Huron -Kinloss - Whitechurch Cross -Sections
Figure 6.22     Municipality of South Bruce - Mildmay and Teeswater Model s
Figure 6.23 A   Municip ality of South Bruce - Mildmay Cross -Sections
Figure 6.23 B   Municipality of South Bruce - Teeswater Cross -Sections
Figure 6.24     Municipality of Kincardine - Kincardine Model s
Figure 6.25 A   Municipality of Kincardine - Craig Eskrick and Kinhuron -Tiverton Cro ss-Sections
Figure 6.25 B   Municipality of Kincardine - Lake Huron Highlands Cross -Sections
Figure 6.25 C   Municipality of Kincardine - Port Head -Craig Eskrick and Tiverton Cross -Sections
Figure 6.25 D   Municipality of Kincardine - Scott Point Cross -Sectio ns
Figure 6.25 E   Municipality of Kincardine - Underwood Cross -Sections
Figure 6.26     Regional Wellfield Capture Zones Map


                                                                                                xxi
Contents

Figure 7.1      Shallow Lake Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.2      Owen Sound Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.3      Chatsworth Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.4             s
                Walter’ Falls Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.5      Neustadt Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.6      Durham Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.7      Dundalk Model – Integrati on of Study Results
Figure 7.8      Hanover Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.9      Markdale Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.10     Feversham Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.11     Kimberley Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.12     Tara Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.13     Chesley Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.14 A   Sauble Beach Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.14 B   Sauble Beach Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.14 C   Sauble B each Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.15     Chepstow Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.16     Ripley Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.17 A   Huron West Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.17 B   Huron West Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.18     Lucknow Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.19     Mildmay Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.20     Teeswater Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.21 A   Kincardine South Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.21 B   Kincardine South Model – Integration of Study Results
Figure 7.22     Kincardine North Model – Integration of Study Results




xxii
Contents

Acknowledgements

A study as complex as the Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study, with various types and
sources of information, requires the cooperative efforts of many individuals. This includes the
efforts of the Steering Committee, and other professionals from local municipalities and
consulting companies, who provided both the data and the guidance on the appropriate use of
the data. The Consultant Team wishes to acknowledge the commitment of the members of the
Steering Committee. The direction, advice and support provided by the committee has been
instrumental in the successful completion of the study tasks. The members of the committee are
listed below:

Chair, Delton Becker, Municipality of West Grey
Project Manager, Ross Slaughter, Henderson, Paddon & Associates
Assistant Project Manager, Ken Goff, Goffco Limited
Janice McDonald, County of Grey, Director of Planning & Development
Chris LaForest, County of Bruce, Director of Planning
Doug Hill, Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, Director of Operations
Don Smith, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, Director of Operations
Milt McIver, Bruce County Councillor

Consultant Team

The Consultant Team for the Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study comprised a number
of talented individuals, encompassing a wide variety of technical expertise. The consulting firms
and task leaders are listed below.

Prime Consultant
·   Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc.
    Waterloo, ON
    Miln Harvey, Project Manager, Hydrogeologic Conceptualization and WHPA Modeling
    Jenny Collins, WHPA Modeling, Groundwater Use and Contaminant Assessment
    Christine Curry, Geographic Information Systems and Database Development
    Mike Elliott, Geographic Information Systems
    Andrea Carnegie, Geographic Information Systems

Subconsultant
·   Gamsby & Mannerow
    Owen Sound, ON
    John Slocombe, WHPA Contaminant Sources Assessment
    Dirk Gevaert, Senior Hydrogeologist

·   International Water Consultants
    Barrie, ON
    Gary Kuehl, Groundwater Use Assessment

·   K.Bruce MacDonald Consulting
    Teeswater, ON
    Bruce MacDonald, Agricultural Water-Use and Land-Use




                                                                                             xxiii
Contents

·      Tunnock Consulting
       North Bay, ON
       Glenn Tunnock, Public Consultation and WHPA Planning

·      R.J. Burnside & Associates
       Orangeville, ON
       Bindu Uppaluri, Regional Groundwater and Aquifer Characterization
       Arunas Kalinauskas, Geographic Information Systems

Public Participation

The Consultant Team appreciates the time and effort of the citizens of Grey and Bruce Counties
throughout the public consultation activities (e.g. public open houses, water use surveys and
contaminant source surveys). Their participation provided constructive feedback on the
progress of the study, and was helpful in completing a number of key components of this
groundwater study.




xxiv
                                                                                    1. Introduction




1     Introduction
The Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study was undertaken to develop an improved
understanding of local groundwater conditions within the context of larger regional groundwater
flow systems. The area encompassed by the Study is presented in Figure 1.1, and includes the
County of Grey, the County of Bruce, and a 5 kilometre buffer area around them, which includes
the nine (9) municipalities of Grey County:

•   Township of Georgian Bluffs;
•   City of Owen Sound;
•   Municipality of Meaford;
•   Township of Chatsworth;
•   Town of The Blue Mountains;
•   Municipality of West Grey;
•   Township of Southgate;
•   Town of Hanover; and,
•   Municipality of Grey Highlands.

and, the eight (8) municipalities of Bruce County:

•   Municipality of North Bruce Peninsula;
•   Town of South Bruce Peninsula;
•   Municipality of Arran-Elderslie;
•   Town of Saugeen Shores;
•   Municipality of Kincardine;
•   Municipality of Brockton;
•   Municipality of Huron-Kinloss; and,
•   Municipality of South Bruce.

The study area excludes the Department of National Defense Land Forces Central Area
Training Centre, and the Cape Croker and Saugeen First Nations Reserves.

The study partners acknowledge that the basic groundwater functions (recharging, transmitting,
assimilating potential contaminants, storing and discharging water) play an essential role in
maintaining the health of an ecosystem. Understanding these regional groundwater functions is
necessary to provide a secure supply of clean water to municipal and communal water systems,
as well as individual groundwater users who do not have access to a municipal supply.

Existing and future land use practices exercised throughout Grey and Bruce Counties (the
Counties) may reduce the long-term sustainability of groundwater resources for both quantity
and quality. This study provides a more thorough understanding of local and regional
groundwater resources that will aid in the development of sound groundwater management and
protection measures to help ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource.

The current study was developed using information from previous hydrogeologic studies
completed at a regional-scale across the Counties, from local-scale studies completed within
the various municipalities, and from a compilation of regional geologic and hydrogeologic
information sources. Previous initiatives have helped create, amongst a core group of people
within the Counties and the Conservation Authorities, an understanding of groundwater



                                                                                               1-1
1. Introduction



processes and the importance of protective measures to help ensure that an abundant, clean
groundwater supply is available in the future.

A Steering Committee was formed to oversee the completion of this study and is comprised of
representatives from local municipalities, consultants, and conservation authorities and the
Ministry of the Environment to address local and regional issues related to the completion of this
study. This Steering Committee includes the following partners:

• the Grey County Planning Department;
• the Bruce County Planning Department;
• the Ministry of the Environment;
• the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority;
• the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority;
• Henderson, Paddon & Associates; and,
• Goffco Limited.
        1.1       Study Objectives
At the onset of the study, a number of objectives were developed by the Study Partners. The
objectives of the Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study are provided below:

Objective 1:         Define and map local and regional groundwater conditions;
Objective 2:         Define groundwater intrinsic susceptibility;
Objective 3:         Compile a contaminant sources inventory;
Objective 4:         Complete wellhead protection area (WHPA) mapping for the following 48
                     municipal well systems:

                  • Township of Georgian Bluffs (Shallow Lake, Pottawatomi Village, Forest Heights
                                and Maple Crest subdivisions);
                  • Township of Chatsworth (Chatsworth and Walter’ Falls);
                                                                     s
                  • Municipality of West Grey (Neustadt and Durham)
                  • Township of Southgate (Dundalk);
                  • Town of Hanover (Hanover);
                  • Municipality of Grey Highlands (Markdale, Feversham and Kimberley);
                  • Municipality of Arran-Elderslie (Tara and Chesley);
                  • Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Huron Woods, Forbes, Trask, Robins, Winburk,
                                Foreman, Fiddlehead, Fedy, Cammidge & Collins, Gremik, and
                                Thomson);
                  • Municipality of Brockton (Lake Rosiland, Chepstow, Walkerton (Geeson Ave));
                  • Town of Saugeen Shores (Miramichi Estates and Miramichi Shores);
                  • Municipality of Huron-Kinloss (Ripley, Lucknow, Point Clark, Blairs Grove,
                                Murdock Glen, Huronville, and Whitechurch);
                  • Municipality of South Bruce (Mildmay and Teeswater); and,
                  • Municipality of Kincardine (Tiverton, Underwood, Scott Point, Kinhuron, Craig-
                                Eskrick, Lake Huron Highlands and Port Head Estates).

Objective 5:         Conduct a contaminant source assessment within each WHPA;
Objective 6:         Develop a municipal action plan for implementing a groundwater source
                     protection strategy; and,
Objective 7:         Promote public groundwater awareness throughout the study area through open
                     houses, local media news releases, and a project website.


1-2
                                                                                        1. Introduction



      1.2    Multi-Barrier Approach to Water Protection
It is important to understand where this groundwater study fits, in relation to other water
resource endeavours geared towards providing a safe and secure water source for the
Counties. Discussion related to the multi-barrier approach to water protection is included to
provide this link.

The multi-barrier approach is an integrated system of procedures, processes and tools that
collectively prevent or reduce the contamination of drinking water from source to tap, in order to
reduce risks to public health (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2002). Figure
1.3 illustrates the multi-barrier approach schematically, highlighting three key processes of
source protection, treatment, and distribution.




Figure 1.3: A Multi-Barrier Approach to Water Protection (CCME, 2002)

Source protection is the first of five barriers commonly applied to provide safe drinking water, as
outlined in Report 2 of the Walkerton Inquiry (O’   Connor, 2002). The other four barriers include
treatment, a secure distribution system, water quality monitoring, and well-planned responses to
adverse conditions.

Source protection is the first measure that can influence water quality to help provide safe
drinking water. It is typically less costly than end-of-pipe treatment options, or developing
alternative drinking water supplies. Developing source protection strategies is dependent on
local willingness to implement various protection strategies, which can range from best
management practices to legislation that influences land use in sensitive source water areas.
      1.3    Notes Regarding the Regional Mapping
It is important to reflect on the detail incorporated into the regional mapping presented in this
report, and to consider appropriate uses for this information. A large portion of the groundwater
and aquifer characterization mapping developed for this study was completed at a regional-
scale. The mapping utilized point information to develop themes such as the depth to bedrock,


                                                                                                   1-3
1. Introduction



sand and gravel thickness, water table elevation, and aquifer vulnerability. Point information
used to develop this mapping is included as small dots on each relevant map. This has been
done to remind the end users of these products that, although the mapping represents
continuous surfaces, it was developed from point data that is not evenly distributed throughout
the study area.

The quality of the point data used in the mapping has been evaluated and is considered
acceptable for its purpose, however it has not been field verified. As such, it is important to
remember that the mapping is a representation of the real world.

The regional maps are presented at a scale of 1:650,000. This means that a 1 mm line is
accurate to within 650 m, and a 1 cm by 1cm square is accurate to within 4.225 ha. This level of
detail is not appropriate for site-specific interpretation, but it does provide valuable information
for regional-scale analyses.
        1.4       Report Organization
This report was organized in sections to address the study objectives outlined above. The
sections are organized by topic to coincide with the different regional and local study objectives.
The study also includes a comprehensive groundwater protection implementation strategy and
provides detailed recommendations and conclusions. Brief descriptions of the topics included in
each of the sections are provided in the following paragraph.

Section 2 presents the regional groundwater and aquifer characterization. This characterization
was used to complete the groundwater susceptibility analysis, which is presented in Section 3.
Section 4 includes the groundwater use assessment, which was completed to evaluate how
groundwater is used throughout the Counties, and to develop a general regional water budget.
A contaminant sources inventory was completed to identify potential contaminant sources
throughout the Counties, and is presented in Section 5. Using the information generated in
Sections 2, 3, and 4, groundwater modeling was completed to map, at a local-scale, time-of-
travel municipal wellhead capture zones. The groundwater modeling and wellhead capture zone
mapping results are presented in Section 6. In Section 7, the capture zones are overlain with
the groundwater susceptibility and potential contaminant sources and evaluated at a local-scale.
Public consultation aspects of the study are presented in Section 8. A groundwater protection
strategy is outlined in Section 9. Study conclusions and recommendations are presented in
Section 10. A glossary of technical terms and abbreviations is presented in Section 11, and the
references are presented in Section 12. All of the figures for the study are presented under
separate cover so that these figures can be reviewed while reading through specific sections.




1-4
                                                                                             2. Regional Aquifer Characterization




2          Regional Groundwater and Aquifer Characterization
           2.1     Overview
To characterize regional groundwater and aquifer conditions in Grey and Bruce Counties, it was
necessary to incorporate as much of the available data as possible from federal, provincial,
municipal and conservation authority sources. These data were synthesized in a Geographical
Information System (GIS) database that was developed for the study.
           2.2     Methodology and Data Sources
The digital information and data layers used in this study are presented in Table 2.1 and include
the following:

Table 2.1:         SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND DATA LAYERS
                 Information / Data Layer                 Type of Data                             Source

     1      Climate                                 Weather                       Environment Canada

     2      Digital Elevation Model (DEM)           Topographic Elevation         Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

     3      Stream Gauging Stations                 Water Elevation & Flow        Water Survey Canada (WSC)

     4      Cadastral Fabric (NRVIS)1.              Lots & Concessions            Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
                                                                                  Ministry of Northern Development
     5      Quaternary Geology                      Quaternary Geology            and Mines (MNDM),
                                                                                  Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)
                                                                                  Ministry of Northern Development
     6      Bedrock Geology Mapping                 Bedrock Geology               and Mines (MNDM),
                                                                                  Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)
                                                    Well Completion and
     7      Water Well Information System                                         Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
                                                    Geologic Information
     8      Permits to Take Water                   Groundwater Takings           Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
            Potentially Contaminated Sites          Landfills, Fuel Storage
     9                                                                            Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
            Databases                               Tanks, Spills, WWTPs
     10     Oil & Gas Wells                         Deep Bedrock Geology          Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
                                                    Map Reference                 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR),
     11     Base Mapping (NRVIS)1.
                                                    Features                      Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
                                                    Spatial Distribution of
     12     Land Use Mapping                                                      County of Grey, County of Bruce
                                                    Land Uses
1.
     NRVIS – Natural Resources & Values Information System, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)

                   2.2.1 Climate
A regional water balance was completed as part of the groundwater use assessment. To
accomplish this, it was necessary to obtain weather data from Environment Canada, which is
summarized by Ecodistrict.

According to Environment Canada, there are 5 Ecodistricts that intersect the Study Area. The
Bruce Peninsula is in Ecodistrict 550; the northern portion of Grey County and the middle of
Bruce County are in Ecodistrict 551; the southern portion of Grey County is in Ecodistrict 556;
and the southern portion of Bruce County is in Ecodistricts 557 and 558. Based on the



                                                                                                                             2-1
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



Canadian Climate Normals for the period from 1961 – 1990, the mean annual precipitation in
the Counties is approximately 980 mm, of which approximately 25% is snowfall (as water).
Precipitation is evenly distributed across the Counties, with a slight increase in average
precipitation toward the south (Environment Canada, 1997).
                2.2.2 Topography
A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the study area was developed to represent the ground
surface topography. This DEM is an electronic representation of ground surface, which ranges
from approximately 540 m above mean sea level (m amsl) along the Niagara Escarpment in the
southeastern part of Grey County to 177 m amsl along the shores of Lake Huron and Georgian
Bay. The information that was used to create this digital representation of ground surface
elevation includes:

• DEM for the study area – MNR;
• Base Mapping (rivers, lakes and wetlands) – MNR; and,
• Water Well Information – MOE.
                2.2.3 Surface Water
Surface water features that were used in characterizing groundwater and aquifer conditions
within the Counties include the rivers, lakes and wetlands that help define the groundwater flow
system and the surface water monitoring locations that describe groundwater discharge
conditions. The surface water mapping was developed using the following information:

• NRVIS (rivers, lakes and wetlands) – MNR;
• Water Well Information – MOE; and,
• Stream Gauge Information – WSC.
                2.2.4 Geology
The Quaternary and bedrock geology are important features that help in developing a better
understanding of the occurrence and flow of groundwater across the study area. The
Quaternary geology in the study area is represented by a wide variety of unconsolidated
deposits that remained after several advances and retreats of glacial ice. These deposits
underlie organic soils that have been mapped as agricultural soils. The following information
was used to create the Quaternary Geology Map:

• Quaternary Geology Mapping – MNDM; and,
• Base Mapping – MNR.

The various bedrock formations in the study area that underlie overburden deposits (Quaternary
geology) are predominantly limestone and dolostone, with some sandstone and shale. The
following information was used to create the Bedrock Geology Map:

• Bedrock Geology Mapping – MNDM;
• Base Mapping – MNR; and,
• Oil and Gas Wells – MOE.
                2.2.5 Hydrogeology
The MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS) database is an excellent source of data for
regional geologic and hydrogeologic mapping. The WWIS database includes, but is not limited
to, the following information:


2-2
                                                                          2. Regional Aquifer Characterization




•   well location (easting, northing, and ground surface elevation);
•   geologic units encountered with depth;
•   water bearing zones and general water quality observations;
•   well construction details;
•   static water levels;
•   pumping test information indicating aquifer & well performance (specific capacity);
•   water use;
•   date of well construction;
•   driller identification; and,
•   other details about the well.

This information, within the study GIS, can be used to develop:

•   geologic and hydrogeologic maps;
•   hydraulic conductivity estimates (from lithology);
•   specific capacity estimates;
•   water levels within aquifer units;
•   groundwater probability maps;
•   aquifer maps;
•   hydraulic gradients; and,
•   groundwater flow paths.

Using the information at each well, continuous mapping can be developed to characterize the
geology/hydrogeology between well locations.

In Ontario, water well information is stored and managed in the Water Well Information System.
A well record must be submitted to the MOE, in hardcopy format, when a new well is drilled.
This process has been used since 1946. The location of the well is recorded with reference to
Township, Lot and Concession, and includes a site drawing. The MOE enters this information
into their database system from the hardcopy they receive. Prior to 1986, the location of the well
(Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Easting and Northing) and its ground elevation were
assigned by checking Lot/Concession information on a topographic map. After 1986, no attempt
was made to assign UTM coordinates or ground elevations to well records. In 1999, the WWIS
database contained 492,898 wells, of which 336,064 wells had been assigned coordinates, and
156,864 had not.

In many cases it is difficult to correlate geologic observations between well logs because each
driller has a unique style of geologic interpretation and data recording. The MOE allows a
maximum of 3 descriptors for each lithologic unit that is recorded in the well record, and there
are 82 possible descriptors. As a result, there are 500,000 possible lithological names that can
be used to describe a lithologic unit. Inconsistencies in lithologic reporting create difficulties for
conceptual model development. Lithologic units are often described differently by different
drillers (i.e. each driller may use 3 different descriptors to describe the same unit). For example,
differentiating between the different tills throughout Grey and Bruce Counties is very difficult
using the water well records. Sand and clay, gravel and clay, and hardpan are terms that may
be used by drillers to describe a silty or clayey till.

Another source of error in the WWIS database results from inaccuracies in the manual entry of
hardcopy information into electronic format, especially in the entry of well location and elevation.


                                                                                                          2-3
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



Section 2.2.6 includes a methodology that was developed to address these types of errors so
that the information can be used for regional-scale hydrogeologic analyses.
                2.2.6 Data Reliability
Prior to developing a conceptual hydrogeologic model of Grey and Bruce Counties, all available
WWIS data were reviewed and evaluated for reliability and quality for both well location and
elevation. The WWIS database for the Counties contained a total of 23,290 wells. Before
transmitting the WWIS data to the Counties, the MOE updated the location reliability codes for
each record. It is understood that some wells in the database have such a large margin of error
associated with their coordinates, they plot outside the Counties, or outside the Township cited
on the record. These wells were isolated and made inactive. Wells with UTM Reliability codes
greater than 6 (margin of error greater than 1 km) were made inactive, following the technical
terms of reference for the study. The ground surface elevation recorded for each well record
was also considered during data quality analysis. The database was queried to compare the
reported well elevations to the ground surface elevation in the DEM. In cases where the
difference between the reported elevation and the DEM was more than 10 m, the wells were
made inactive.

Figure 2.1 presents a map of well reliability. Three categories of reliability are presented. There
are 4,960 high reliability wells (location reliability < 4, and elevation reliability < ± 3 m), 10,693
medium reliability wells (location reliability = 5 or 6, and elevation reliability ≤ ± 10 m) and 7,637
unreliable wells (location reliability > 6, and/or elevation reliability > ± 10 m). Figure 2.2 shows
the active wells throughout the study area, whereby overburden and bedrock wells are
differentiated. Approximately 75% of the wells are completed in bedrock, and 25% are
completed in the overburden. A greater percentage of wells are completed into bedrock in the
northern half of Bruce County along the peninsula where the overburden is thin. A greater
percentage of wells are completed into bedrock in the eastern half of Grey County where the
overburden thins toward the Niagara Escarpment.
                2.2.7 Previous Studies
Numerous reports related to groundwater resources investigation and conservation in Grey and
Bruce Counties have been published over the past 25 years. These reports include local-scale
hydrogeologic analyses, as well as regional-scale assessments of groundwater resources within
the Counties. They provide a useful source of information on the geology and hydrogeology of the
Counties.

Many local-scale hydrogeologic assessments have been completed in support of the development
of municipal groundwater supply wells, solid waste landfills, sanitary sewage works, and
                                           s
subdivision developments. First Engineer’ Reports and reports supporting Permit To Take
Water applications are available for most of the municipal systems. Most of this information was
obtained from the Southwest Region office of the MOE in London, and from local Municipalities.
On a regional-scale, the Ministry of the Environment completed ground-water probability mapping
of Grey and Bruce Counties, in 1980 and 1983, respectively. Several other provincial-scale reports
and documents contain useful information pertinent to the study. Section 11 of this report lists the
reference material that was gathered and compiled for this groundwater study, organized by
geographic area.

Additional resources include the Geology of Ontario (Ontario Geological Survey, Vol. 4, Parts 1
and 2), which provides detailed descriptions of Quaternary sediments and bedrock units; the
Physiography of Southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam, 1984), which provides information
on the physiography of the Counties; and, the Hydrogeology of Southern Ontario, which


2-4
                                                                      2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



provides useful information on the occurrence, distribution, quantity and quality of groundwater
in Southern Ontario on a regional-scale (Singer et al., 1997).
     2.3   Surface Features
           2.3.1 Surface Topography
Ground surface elevation in the Grey-Bruce area ranges from approximately 540 m amsl in the
southeastern part of Grey County to 177 m amsl along the shores of Lake Huron and Georgian
Bay. Figure 2.3 presents a topographic map of the region based on the Digital Elevation Model.
The highest elevations occur along the Niagara Escarpment, which parallels the Georgian Bay
shoreline from Collingwood in the east to Tobermory on the northern tip of the Bruce Peninsula.
Major embayments in the Escarpment include the bays leading to Wiarton and Owen Sound,
and the Beaver and Bighead Valleys, which extend south from Thornbury and Meaford,
respectively.
           2.3.2 Surface Water
Figure 2.4A presents the surface drainage network within the Counties. Watercourses in the
southcentral portion of the region are part of the Saugeen Valley watershed, which constitutes
the largest watershed in the study area. To the east are portions of the headwaters of the
Nottawasaga River, to the southeast are portions of the headwaters of the Grand River, and to
the south are portions of the headwaters of the Maitland River. The remainder of the Grey-
Bruce region consists of numerous smaller watersheds draining over short distances directly
into Lake Huron or Georgian Bay. These include the Sauble, Sydenham, Bighead and Beaver
watersheds, as well as the small rivers and creeks of the Bruce Peninsula. The watershed
boundaries of the principal drainage basins are shown in Figure 2.4A.
           2.3.3 Stream Flow
Portions of five conservation authorities are present in the Counties. The Saugeen Valley
Conservation Authority (SVCA) is the largest of the five, and is contained entirely by the
Counties. The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) is also contained entirely by the
Counties, and includes four (4) river valleys north of the SVCA (the Sauble, the Sydenham, the
Bighead and the Beaver rivers). A small area of the headwaters of the Nottawasaga Valley
Conservation Authority occurs in the eastern part of Grey County, and includes a portion of the
Niagara Escarpment from Craigleith south to Maple Valley. A small area of the headwaters of
the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) occurs in the southeastern part of Grey
County, and includes the area around Dundalk. A small portion of the headwaters of the
Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) occurs in the southern part of Bruce County,
and includes the area around Lucknow.

Figure 2.4B presents the locations of 13 stream gauging stations in the Counties. Information for
these stations was obtained from the Water Survey of Canada (2002). Six (6) stations are found
within the SVCA, five (5) are found within the GSCA, one (1) is found within the GRCA and one
(1) is found on the Bruce Peninsula (see Table 2.2). Data collected at these stations was used
to characterize stream baseflows within the Counties.

The average stream baseflow in the Counties is 105 mm/yr with a range that varies from 20 to
163 mm/yr. This value was obtained by dividing the lowest value of the July, August and
September stream flow (the baseflow) by the drainage area of the stream upgradient of the
station. The lowest stream flow value was used because it is believed to most accurately reflect
stream baseflow, which is maintained predominantly by groundwater discharge.




                                                                                                      2-5
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



Table 2.2:      STREAM GAUGING STATIONS
             Station Name              Watershed   WSC ID   Average Drainage Years Average
                                                            Baseflow  Area    of   Baseflow
                                                             (m3/s)  (km2)   Data (mm/yr)
1     Saugeen River near
                               SVCA        02FC001           14.36    3960       87      114.4
      Port Elgin
2     Teeswater River near
                               SVCA        02FC015           1.87     663        26      88.9
      Paisley
3     Saugeen River near
                               SVCA        02FC002           8.34     2150       87      122.3
      Walkerton
4     Carrick Creek near
                               SVCA        02FC011           0.35     163        41      67.7
      Carlsruhe
5     South Saugeen River
                               SVCA        02FC012           1.39     635        26      69.0
      near Hanover
6     Saugeen River above
                               SVCA        02FC016           0.75     329        21      71.9
      Durham
7     Sauble River at
                               GSCA        02FA001           1.89     927        44      64.3
      Sauble Falls
8     Sauble River at
                               GSCA        02FA004           0.33     301        7       34.6
      Allenford
9     Sydenham River near
                               GSCA        02FB007           0.63     181        54      109.8
      Owen Sound
10    Bighead River near
                               GSCA        02FB010           0.84     293        44      90.4
      Meaford
11    Beaver River near
                               GSCA        02FB009           2.96     572        42      163.2
      Clarksburg
12    Grand River near
                               GRCA        02GA041           0.04     62.9       16      20.1
      Dundalk
13    Stokes River near
                           Bruce Peninsula 02FA002           0.07     50.2       25      43.7
      Ferndale


        2.4     Geology
                2.4.1 Quaternary Geology
The last period of glaciation in southern Ontario occurred from approximately 23,000 to 10,000
years ago, during the Wisconsinan Substage of the Pleistocene Epoch. During this time, the
Laurentide Continental Ice sheet advanced out of the Great Lakes basins (Lake Huron, Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario) to cover southern Ontario. The locations of the ice lobes and their
margins fluctuated until the final retreat of the glaciers, which started approximately 10,000
years ago. The surficial geology left by the glaciers is highly varied across the Counties, as
illustrated in Figure 2.5. The physical features of the land surface are illustrated in Figure 2.6,
the Physiography of Grey and Bruce Counties (from Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

Glacial deposits remaining after the last glaciation determine the current physiography of the
region, the nature and distribution of surficial aquifers, groundwater discharge and recharge
areas, and the sand and gravel deposits. Much of the study area is covered by till, which
typically transmits water slowly (i.e. has a low hydraulic conductivity) because of its fine-textured
character. In contrast, there are also sand plains, and glaciofluvial sand deposits (spillways),
which have higher hydraulic conductivities because of their coarse-textured character. A
summary of the Glacial Periods, from youngest to oldest, and the Quaternary deposits that
result from them, is presented in Table 2.3.


2-6
                                                                                  2. Regional Aquifer Characterization




Table 2.3:     SUMMARY OF QUATERNARY DEPOSITS AND EVENTS IN THE STUDY AREA
                                                                                            Morphologic
     Age            Glacial Period     Deposit or Event           Lithology
                                                                                            Expression
                                      Modern alluvium
  10,000 -                                                  Silt, sand, gravel,       Present day rivers and
                Post-glacial          and organic
  present                                                   peat, muck, marl          flood plains
                                      deposits
                                                                                      Flat-lying surficial
                                      Lacustrine deposits   Silt and clay
                                                                                      deposits
  12,000 –      Two Creeks                                  Sand, gravel,             Mainly buried (end
  10,000        Interstade            Outwash
                                                            some silt                 moraine)
                                      Ice Contact           Sand, gravel              Kames and eskers
  13,000 –
                Port Huron Stade      St. Joseph Till       Silt to silty clay till   Surficial till
  12,000
  15,000 –
                Mackinaw Interstade   Elma till             Silt till                 Lower stony till
  13,000
                                      Dunkeld Till          Silt till                 Surficial till
  16,000 –
                Port Bruce Stade
  15,000
                                      Elma Till             Silt till                 Surficial till
  18,000 –
                Erie Interstade       Lacustrine deposits   Silts                     Wildwood Silt deposits
  16,000
  20,000 –                                                  Stoney, sandy silt
                Nissouri Stade        Catfish Creek Till                              Buried
  18,000                                                    to silt till
(After Karrow, 1993; 1977)


The Catfish Creek Till is the oldest till in Grey and Bruce Counties. It was deposited during the
Nissouri Stade as ice advanced from the north, approximately 20,000 – 18,000 years ago.
Temperatures warmed and the ice sheet melted leaving large glacial lakes in the Erie and
Huron basins during the Erie Interstade, approximately 18,000 -16,000 years ago.

At the beginning of the Port Bruce Stade, approximately 16,000 – 15,000 years ago, the climate
cooled and a series of smaller ice lobes moved radially out of the Great Lake basins into
southern Ontario. Grey and Bruce Counties, which sit between Lake Huron and Georgian Bay,
were overridden by the Huron-Georgian Bay lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. During this stade,
the ice lobe deposited the Elma Till and the Dunkeld Till. The Elma till occurs as ground moraine
and in the drumlins of the Teeswater drumlin field, and is associated with the Singhampton
Moraine. The Dunkeld Till occurs as ground moraine within the Saugeen River Valley and is the
core of the Walkerton Moraine. Elma Till is probably older and younger than the Dunkeld Till.
Temperatures warmed again and the ice sheet retreated during the Mackinaw Interstade,
approximately 15,000 – 13,000 years ago.

At the beginning of the Port Huron Stade, approximately 13,000 – 12,000 years ago, the climate
cooled again and the Huron-Georgian Bay ice lobe readvanced and deposited the St. Joseph
Till in the area. The St. Joseph Till occurs in the Wyoming Moraine, the Williscroft Moraine and
the Banks Moraine, which parallel the Lake Huron and Georgian Bay shorelines, and roughly
define the extent of the ice lobe advance. After the Post Huron Stade, the Laurentian Ice Sheet
receded northward during the Two Creeks Interstade, approximately 12,000 – 10,000 years
ago, and deposited lacustrine silts and clays, and ice-contact and outwash sands and gravels.

The dominant surficial features of the study area are presented below, and are based on the
Physiography of Southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam, 1984):


                                                                                                                  2-7
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization




• The Bruce Peninsula consists largely of exposed dolostone plains, with thin overburden
  throughout. The soils are shallow, and are classified as Breypen series in the Ontario Soil
  Survey. The irregular topography of the bedrock surface results in many small lakes and
  swamps on the Peninsula;
• Coarse-textured glaciolacustrine deposits make up the sand plains of the Huron Fringe. This
  area comprises wave-cut terraces of glacial Lakes Algonquin and Nipissing along the Lake
  Huron shore, with minor sand plains also occurring along the Georgian Bay shoreline;
• Shale plains, known as the Cape Rich Steps, are located between Owen Sound and
  Nottawasaga Bay. This area consists of Paleozoic bedrock overlain by shallow overburden,
  with the plain being incised by the Beaver Valley (in the Thornbury area) and the Bighead
  Valley (in the Meaford area);
• The Port Huron Moraine system, consisting of glaciofluvial and ice-contact stratified deposits
  (kames), extending southwest from the head of the Beaver and Bighead Valleys covering
  the southcentral part of the study area. Meltwater stream deposits and spillways also occur
  throughout this physiographic region, as do drumlins in the vicinity of Dornoch. Huron clay
  loam is a common soil type on the moraine ridges;
• The southeast part of Grey County, extending to the southern tip of Beaver Valley and east
  to the Niagara Escarpment, consists mainly of drumlinized till plains, with a small drumlin
  field in the area of Dundalk. The till is a stone-poor, carbonate-derived silty to sandy deposit;
• A similar area located at the base of the Bruce Peninsula is known as the Arran drumlin
  field. The ground moraine is thin with many of the drumlins located directly on bedrock;
• Immediately south of the Arran drumlin field is an area of fine-textured, glaciolacustrine
  deposits of the Saugeen Clay Plain. It is underlain by deep stratified clay deposited in a bay
  of glacial Lake Warren. The Saugeen River, Teeswater River and Deer Creek have cut
  valleys through the clay up to 38 m (125 feet) deep; and,
• West of the Saugeen Clay Plain, and extending south along the Lake Huron shore, is an
  area of silty to clayey till of the Huron Slope. The till is generally up to 3 m thick, and overlies
  stratified clay. The clay matrix of the till is likely reworked material from the underlying clay
  beds.

                2.4.2 Bedrock Geology
Understanding bedrock geology is a key component to understanding bedrock aquifers and
regional groundwater movement. Descriptions of the bedrock units, and an understanding of
groundwater quality parameters like hardness and salinity, help to identify regional aquifers and
aquitards. Information on bedrock geology was compiled from numerous sources, including:
mapping from the Ontario Geological Survey, reports on Paleozoic geology from various
authors, and a review of well records in the WWIS.

General bedrock stratigraphy of the study area is presented in Table 2.4 and illustrated in Figure
2.7. Bedrock consists mainly of carbonate (limestone and dolostone) rocks of Ordivician to
Devonian age. There are some shale units that are interbedded with the limestone and
dolostone. These limestone, dolostone and shale units are part of the Michigan Basin marine
sediments, deposited approximately 480 to 300 million years ago. The bedrock dips to the
southwest at a regional slope of 5 to 7 m/km. Limestone and dolostone are quarried locally for
aggregate and building stone, and shale is quarried for brick and tile. There is a general thinning
of the overburden from west to east, resulting in bedrock exposure along the Escarpment. An
indication of the depth to bedrock is also the shown in the distribution of historical quarry



2-8
                                                                                2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



operations. With the exception of a few around Walkerton and Kincardine, all quarry operations
are located in the area of Owen Sound and north on the Bruce Peninsula.

Table 2.4:   BEDROCK GEOLOGY UNDERLYING THE STUDY AREA
   Period     Group          Formation                      Material Type                     Approximate
                                                                                               Thickness
                                                                                                (metre)

Quaternary              Overburden (glacially-derived gravel, sand, silt and clay)                0 – 100

                         Dundee              Brown limestone                                      0 – 100
Middle
Devonian                 Lucas               Grey-brown limestone and dolostone                   35 – 45
             Detroit
             River
                         Amherstburg         Tan to grey-brown bituminous limestone               45 – 75
Lower
                         Bois Blanc          Grey-green to grey-brown limestone                   40 – 60
Silurian
                         Bass Islands        Dark-brown to buff dolostone                         22 – 28
Upper
Silurian                                     Interbedded grey-brown limestone and
                         Salina                                                                  up to 330
                                             bituminous shale
                         Guelph-Eramosa Buff to brown medium-bedded dolostone                     4 – 100

                         Amabel              Blue-grey thick-bedded dolostone                     13 – 25

                         Fossil Hill         Buff to grey-brown fossiliferous dolostone            0 – 24
Middle
Silurian
                         St. Edmund          Cream-buff thin-bedded dolostone                      0 – 25
                                             Olive-green argillaceous dolostone and
                         Wingfield                                                                 2 – 15
                                             shale
                         Dyer Bay            Grey-brown dolostone                                 0 – 7.6

                         Cabot Head          Maroon to green-grey non-calcareous shale            10 – 39
Lower
             Cataract
Silurian
                         Manitoulin          Grey fossiliferous dolostone                          0 – 25

                         Queenston           Maroon shale                                        45 – 335
Upper
Ordivician               Georgian Bay        Blue-grey shale                                    125 – 200

                         Blue Mountain       Blue-grey non-calcareous shale                      up to 60


Most of the limestone and dolostone units have the potential to supply adequate quantities of
water. However, the water has elevated hardness due to the carbonate composition of the
bedrock. The Guelph and Amabel Formations are important bedrock aquifers that occupy a
band, up to 30 km wide, which extends northwest of Shelburne to Sauble Beach and up the
western side of the Bruce Peninsula. Poor water quantity and quality characterize the shale of
the Queenston Formation, and poor water quality characterizes the Salina Formation, which has
elevated hardness, sulphate and chloride.




                                                                                                                2-9
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



                2.4.3 Bedrock Topography
The purpose of the bedrock surface elevation mapping is to identify bedrock valleys in which
useful overburden aquifers may be located and, to define bedrock highs and lows, which could
control groundwater occurrence and movement. A map of the elevation of the bedrock surface
is presented in Figure 2.8.

The bedrock surface elevation in the study area ranges from 540 m amsl in the southeast
portion of Grey County, to 170 m amsl along the Lake Huron and Georgian Bay shorelines and
to 120 m amsl south of Kincardine. In general, the bedrock elevation controls, and is parallel to,
the overlying ground surface, shown in Figure 2.3. Prominent bedrock depressions or valleys
are associated with the Beaver and Bighead Valleys, which are embayments in the Niagara
Escarpment adjacent to Georgian Bay. A broad bedrock valley is also evident from Hanover to
the Lake Huron shore at Southampton, and underlies the Saugeen River Valley. Parallel to this
is a less prominent bedrock valley, beginning just northwest of Wingham.

These bedrock topography features can be seen in the regional and local cross-sections that
are described in Section 2.4.5.
                2.4.4 Karst Features
Karst is a distinctive type of topography, formed primarily by the dissolution of carbonate rocks,
such as limestone and dolostone. Water infiltrating into the ground is mildly acidic reacting with
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and soil, and enlarges the openings in the subsurface,
creating a subsurface drainage system. Over time, groundwater flow conduits enlarge, and
aquifers with large conduits are created thereby lowering the water table below the level of
surface streams. These surface streams and drains may begin to lose water to developing cave
systems underground. As more surface drainage is diverted underground, streams may
disappear and become replaced by closed basins called sinkholes. Sinkholes vary from small
cylindrical pits to large conical or parabolic basins that collect and funnel runoff into karst
aquifers (Ford and Williams, 1989).

Groundwater flow in karst areas is significantly different from that of other aquifers because of
the solutionally enlarged conduits. In conventional carbonate (limestone, dolostone) aquifers,
groundwater moves very slowly. In karst aquifers, groundwater flowing in enlarged conduits can
have velocities approaching those of surface streams. The nature of this flow system makes
karst areas highly susceptible to groundwater contamination (Ford and Williams, 1989).

Shallow karst aquifers are vulnerable to contamination because they can receive recharge in
two ways. They can receive surficial recharge through the soil profile, and concentrated
recharge from surface streams and drains that flow directly into the aquifer at sinkholes.
Contaminants associated with agricultural activities, such as nitrates, bacteria and pesticides,
are potential problems in karst areas as the rapid groundwater velocities allow contaminants to
travel long distances through the aquifer in a very short period of time.

Karst areas are common along the Bruce Peninsula as a result of thinning overburden and
exposed bedrock. Two studies were completed that document karst in the Counties. In Bruce
County, a study was conducted for the Canadian Parks Service in the northern Bruce Peninsula
to map karst areas along the Niagara Escarpment. This study completed a survey of the
geomorphological features of the Peninsula within the former Township of St. Edmunds
including karst, glacial, aeolian and fluvial features. Hardcopy maps from this study were
georeferenced and used to develop a digital database of karst features on the Bruce Peninsula


2-10
                                                                       2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



(Canadian Parks Service, 1994). In Grey County, karst is considered a constraint on
development when coupled with shallow overburden. Continued investigations on the location of
karst features in the Counties will help to develop a GIS database of karst areas, which will
provide valuable information for the assessment of groundwater vulnerability.
            2.4.5 Regional Cross-Sections
General subsurface geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in the Counties were evaluated
through the development of eight regional cross-sections. R.J. Burnside developed these
regional cross-sections using SiteFX software. The locations of the cross-sections are shown in
Figure 2.9, and individual cross-sections are presented in Figures 2.10 to 2.17. These cross-
sections were prepared using the updated MOE water well record database, and show
Quaternary and bedrock geology, water level elevation, surface water features, and bedrock
topography. The cross-sections also show the parallel nature of the bedrock and ground surface
topography, the thinning of the overburden from west to east toward the Niagara Escarpment,
and some of the physiographic features of the study area. Details of the geology and the
relationship of the geology to the regional water table and hydrogeology are discussed
throughout this report.

Additional local cross-sections through each municipal system were also completed during the
WHPA modeling phase of the study. Waterloo Hydrogeologic developed these local cross-
sections using CSMapper, which is described below. The local cross-sections are smaller than
the regional sections and provide local geologic information near the municipal wells. These
results are presented in Section 6.

Description of CSMapper
CSMapper is a Windows based application that resides within the MapInfo GIS environment as
an add-on application. CSMapper uses many standard GIS tools available for selecting and
querying data. In addition, all GIS data are available to CSMapper, allowing spatial data such as
topography (the DEM and bedrock surfaces), or borehole metadata to be directly displayed on
cross-sections. A GIS is used to manage and visualize large information databases, make and
confirm interpretations on-screen, and store layer definitions for use in model development.

Application of CSMapper is a four-step process:

•   Select the boreholes to be displayed on the cross-section;
•   Select the straight-line segment onto which the boreholes will be projected;
•   Build the cross-section using CSMapper; and,
•   Interpret the geology and save the interpretations to the GIS database.

Once the “Interpretation Database” has been populated, these data can be readily used within
the GIS for interpolation of model layers. This provides a useful functionality for developing
Visual MODFLOW models, which can use the geologic and hydrogeologic information in the
GIS database to define model parameter values and boundary conditions.

The cross-sections mainly use water well records from the WWIS. However, oil and gas wells
were also used to interpret deeper bedrock geology. The oil and gas wells were provided by the
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) in Excel spreadsheets. The electronic
data were recompiled to facilite the inclusion of the oil and gas wells in the cross-sections. The
oil and gas wells show the lower bedrock units sloping to the southwest. The oil and gas wells
are denoted with a letter (F or T) preceding a six-digit number on the cross-sections.



                                                                                                      2-11
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



                2.4.6 Overburden Thickness
Overburden thickness throughout Grey and Bruce Counties is presented in Figure 2.18. There
are similarities between the overburden thickness, the bedrock elevation (Figure 2.8) and
ground surface elevation (Figure 2.3), indicating that the overburden thickness and ground
surface elevation are both partially controlled by the underlying bedrock topography.
Overburden thickness is an important hydrogeologic parameter to review, because it is one of
the major parameters that controls the amount of protection for underlying surficial and bedrock
aquifers. Overburden thickness and grain size distribution control the infiltration rate, and the
rate of movement of surface contamination, into these aquifers.

Exposed bedrock occurs mainly along the Bruce Peninsula. Elsewhere, a maximum thickness
of up to 80 metres is associated mainly with bedrock depressions. Two such bedrock
depressions underlie the Beaver and Bighead Valleys, with a maximum overburden thickness of
60 m and 80 m, respectively. Although the overburden is less than 30 m thick under the current
Beaver Valley, a swath of slightly thicker overburden extends past the tip of the valley as far
southwest as Mount Forest, indicating a possible bedrock depression in this area not identified
in the bedrock elevation data. Another area of thick overburden is associated with the bedrock
valley underlying the Saugeen River, from Hanover to the Lake Huron shore at Southampton.
Overburden thickness of up to 80 m occurring at the Lake Huron shore indicates that the
underlying bedrock valley likely extends farther to the northwest, under the lake. Two additional
areas of thick overburden occur in the region. One is between Walkerton and Kincardine, and is
reflected in an area of higher ground surface elevations. The other is along the Lake Huron
shore south of Kincardine. Neither area is associated with a bedrock depression.

Sand and gravel thickness throughout the study area is presented in Figure 2.19. The thickness
was calculated by summing the total thickness of sand and/or gravel logged in the MOE water
well records. The map is used to identify areas of thicker permeable material, identifying areas
of potentially significant aquifers within overburden material. The map does not differentiate
between sands and gravels above the water table and saturated material below the water table,
and so it over-estimates potential aquifer thickness.

The data indicates that most of the study area is underlain by less than 10 metres of sand and
gravel. Areas with greater than 30 metres in thickness are small and isolated, and typically are
intersected by three or fewer water wells, further indicating the limited nature of individual
sand/gravel zones. However, clusters of thicker sand and gravel material are associated with
distinct Quaternary geology features shown on Figure 2.6, particularly the Port Huron Moraine
system and glaciolacustrine sand deposits close to Lake Huron, and areas of thicker
overburden (Figure 2.18) like the Beaver Valley and the Bighead Valley, and the bedrock
depression underlying the Saugeen River Valley. The major bedrock valleys are not directly
associated with thicker intervals of sand and gravel, which may be partly due to a lack of data
since domestic wells are not typically drilled deeper than the first suitable aquifer. As a result,
the full thickness of sand and gravel within the bedrock depressions is not likely represented.
        2.5     Hydrogeology
Grey and Bruce Counties can be conceptualized as a three-layered hydrogeologic model with,
from top to bottom, a fine-grained overburden aquitard layer, a thin weathered bedrock aquifer
layer, and a thick unweathered bedrock aquifer. Details of the subsurface hydrogeologic
conditions in the Counties were determined by examining eight (8) regional cross-sections and
many local area cross-sections.



2-12
                                                                       2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



            2.5.1 Water Table
A regional water table map is presented in Figure 2.20. This figure is based on the static water
levels observed in wells drilled to depths of less than 15 m, and assumes all wells are under
unconfined conditions. To augment the information available in the WWIS, the elevation of
surface water streams, rivers and lakes and the DEM were used to constrain the developed
water table map. By constraining the water table, it is possible to make sure that it does not
exceed ground surface.

These data have been contoured to produce lines of equal water table elevation. In general, the
elevation of the water table closely reflects the ground surface elevation (Figure 2.3). Water
table elevations range from 540 m amsl in the eastern portion of the region, to 177 m amsl
adjacent to Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. Water table gradients are generally consistent
throughout the area, except for steeper gradients along the Niagara Escarpment. Groundwater
flow divides also generally follow surface watershed boundaries shown on Figure 2.4.
            2.5.2 Bedrock Equipotentials
A regional bedrock equipotential map is presented in Figure 2.21. This figure is based on static
water levels in all bedrock wells. Overall, the bedrock equipotential contours closely reflect the
bedrock surface elevation contours shown in Figure 2.8. Equipotential elevations range from
540 m amsl in the eastern portion of the region, to 177 m amsl adjacent to the Georgian Bay
and Lake Huron shores.

Figure 2.21 also illustrates the hydraulic gradient and general flow directions of the deeper
groundwater environment in the study area. Hydraulic gradients are generally consistent
throughout the area, except for steeper gradients in the areas of the bedrock valleys (beneath
the Beaver and Bighead Rivers) and bedrock depressions (beneath the Saugeen River Valley).
Deeper groundwater flow is influenced more by bedrock topography than the shallow
groundwater. The potentiometric surface generally parallels the elevation of the bedrock and, as
a result, there is a general trend in groundwater flow toward the northwest across the region,
which is interrupted by the bedrock depressions underlying the Saugeen, Bighead and Beaver
Valleys.
            2.5.3 Groundwater Flow
Groundwater flows from areas of high hydraulic head to areas of low hydraulic head, which
results in groundwater flow directions that are perpendicular to the contours of groundwater
equipotential, as indicated by the blue arrows. The flow directions shown on Figure 2.20 indicate
that shallow groundwater flows generally in a northwest direction across the majority of Grey
and Bruce Counties, toward Lake Huron. This is similar to the surface water drainage direction.
As with surface water drainage, the groundwater flow direction is modified somewhat between
Walkerton and Paisley, in response to the valley of the Saugeen River. Similarly, shallow
groundwater flow is directed locally toward the Beaver and Bighead Valleys in the northern part
of Grey County. On the Bruce Peninsula, groundwater flows either east toward Georgian Bay or
west toward Lake Huron.
            2.5.4 Recharge and Discharge Areas
Groundwater not only moves laterally through aquifers, but also moves vertically, in response to
differences in hydraulic head between aquifers, called vertical gradients. These differences can
be determined by comparing the water table elevations (Figure 2.20) of the shallow aquifers
with the deeper potentiometric surface elevations (Figure 2.21) of the bedrock aquifers. Where
the potentiometric surface elevation is higher than the water table elevation, groundwater flow is


                                                                                                      2-13
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



upward, and deeper groundwater will recharge the shallow aquifers from below. In some cases,
upward groundwater flow may result in discharge to the ground surface. However, if the water
table elevation is higher than the bedrock potentiometric elevation, groundwater flow is
downward, and shallower groundwater will recharge the deeper aquifers. Downward
groundwater flow may not necessarily indicate recharge to the shallow aquifers from ground
surface. Therefore, the areas of downward and upward vertical gradients within the aquifers
only indicate potential areas of shallow groundwater recharge and discharge throughout the
region. Recharge areas are more sensitive with respect to groundwater protection as they are
not only areas of infiltration and recharge to the deeper groundwater aquifers, but are also areas
where surface contamination can more easily enter deep aquifers.

Vertical gradients through the upper and lower aquifer units are identified in Figure 2.22. Areas
of downward vertical gradients occur over the majority of the study area, and likely include
areas of groundwater recharge, which generally correspond to upland areas between surface
water courses. Areas of upward vertical gradients are scattered throughout the region and tend
to occur along rivers, which generally correspond to areas of groundwater discharge. However,
there are relatively few groundwater discharge areas associated with the Saugeen Clay Plain
and the clayey till of the Huron Slope, as described in Section 2.4.1. The clayey surficial
deposits in these areas restrict the upward movement of deeper groundwater.
                2.5.5 Regional Aquifers
Groundwater is defined as the “    subsurface water that occurs beneath the water table in soils
and geologic formations that are fully saturated” (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). The water table
defines the upper boundary of the groundwater zone. Groundwater is said to be under
“ unconfined conditions” when part of the soil is saturated and the water table is in direct contact
with the atmosphere through the spaces within the unsaturated portion of the soil. When a
saturated granular formation (aquifer) is overlain by an impermeable formation (aquitard)
restricting the upward movement of water through the formation, the groundwater is said to be
under “                       .
         confined conditions” If the overlying formation is semi-permeable permitting some
limited movement of water through the formation, the groundwater may be said to be under
“ semi-confined” or “                             .
                      leaky-confined conditions” Rates of groundwater flow through saturated
formations depend on hydraulic conductivity (the ability to transmit water), and the hydraulic
gradient (driving force). Groundwater flow also depends on the extent, conductivity and
continuity of the aquifer materials.

Thick coarse-grained materials, such as sand and gravel, are the best overburden aquifers.
Overburden is highly variable in thickness and composition, and areas of thicker overburden
with high percentages of sand and gravel are the best aquifers. Such areas include the Port
Huron Moraine, areas of glaciolacustrine sands, and bedrock depressions. The nature of the
bedrock underlying an overburden aquifer can influence the quality of the water resource.

Areas of thick, saturated sand and gravel deposits within the study area are illustrated in Figure
2.23. Overburden aquifer locations thus correspond with areas of thickest overburden, as shown
on Figure 2.18. Given the nature of the overburden material of the Port Huron Moraine, and the
thick sand and gravel units associated with it, this Quaternary unit is a likely good source of
groundwater.

The occurrence and movement of groundwater in bedrock aquifers is governed by the rock
type, structure and, in some cases, the thickness and type of the overlying overburden. In
sedimentary rocks such as those in the study area, groundwater occurs in bedding planes,
fractures, crevices, vugs and other pore spaces characteristic of carbonate rocks.


2-14
                                                                       2. Regional Aquifer Characterization




Domestic bedrock wells are typically completed into the upper 10 to 30 metres of the bedrock.
The required capacities for domestic wells are small, typically less than 0.8 L/s (10 igpm).
Therefore, drilling usually stops when this volume of water is available. Higher capacity
municipal wells are typically drilled deeper than domestic wells to maximize well capacity. The
depth of the bedrock wells is determined by the thickness of the overburden plus the thickness
of hard rock that needs to be penetrated to obtain the required water supply.

The distribution and depth of bedrock wells shown in Figure 2.24 represents the location of the
bedrock aquifers in Grey and Bruce Counties. The surficial bedrock units are only presented in
Figure 2.24 to provide a correlation with the bedrock wells, and may not necessarily correspond
to bedrock aquifers. Bedrock wells are evenly distributed in the bedrock units throughout the
region, however the wells may penetrate through the surficial bedrock unit to an underlying
bedrock aquifer. For example, the wells located in the in the Bass Islands Formation in Figure
2.24 likely penetrate to the underlying Salina Formation, which is generally more permeable.
Wells in the Guelph and Amabel Formations appear to intersect less bedrock than wells in other
formations, indicating that they are more productive aquifers.
            2.5.6 Specific Capacity
The specific capacity of a well is the ratio of the pumping rate to the drawdown (decline in water
                                     s
level) and is a measure of the well’ productivity. Knowing the specific capacity of a well allows
the theoretical calculation of its ultimate capacity, which is determined by multiplying the
available drawdown (m) by the specific capacity (in L/s/m). The specific capacity of wells that
have pumping test data of more than 24-hours in duration is illustrated in Figure 2.25. Wells
having the highest specific capacities in the study area are adjacent to Williamsford, Hanover
and Lucknow, and one well immediately north of Kincardine on the Lake Huron shore. These
wells are located in areas overlain by, or adjacent to, fine grained glaciolacustirne deposits, as
shown on Figure 2.6. These fine-grained surface aquitards may cause local confining conditions
in lower aquifer units and thus significant upward groundwater gradients and lower recorded
drawdown in pumped wells, resulting in high specific capacities for the selected wells.
            2.5.7 Regional Groundwater Quality
The Ontario Drinking Water Standards (MOE, 2001) were designed to protect public health
through the provision of safe drinking water. Water intended for domestic use should not contain
disease-causing organisms, or unsafe concentrations of toxic chemicals or radioactive
substances. Water should be aesthetically acceptable, and parameters such as taste, odour,
turbidity and colour should be controlled.

Drinking water quality criteria must take into consideration several factors that may impact the
quality of drinking water, public health, and technology available to treat the water. In the
Ontario Drinking Water Standards, both ‘  standards’and ‘ objectives’are outlined. If a parameter
is assigned a ‘ standard’ there is a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) assigned to the
parameter. The MAC is a health-related standard established for parameters which, when
present above a certain concentration, are known or suspected to cause adverse health effects.
In contrast, ‘objectives’ (aesthetic objectives or operational guidelines) are established for
parameters that may impair the taste, odour or colour of the water, or may interfere with good
water quality control practices.

Regional groundwater quality was evaluated using information contained in the Engineer’        s
Reports for each of the municipal wells in the study area. Included in the evaluation were
chemical parameters (chloride, nitrate, and fluoride), parameters not directly related to health


                                                                                                      2-15
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



(iron and hardness), and an indicator of potential surface water connection to the groundwater
system (turbidity).

Figure 2.26 presents these groundwater quality indicators for the municipal systems in the study
area. For each municipal well a chart is presented, which shows the results of the parameters
that were sampled in the well water. All of the results reflect tests conducted on raw water
samples (prior to treatment and distribution). For reference, the Ontario Drinking Water
Standard limits and guidelines are also provided on Figure 2.26.

Chloride is an aesthetic objective parameter, which may originate naturally or be introduced
anthropogenically (e.g. from road salt application). The aesthetic objective for chloride is 250
mg/L. None of the samples taken from municipal wells in the Counties exceeded this objective.
                                                                 s
The highest detected concentrations were observed in the Blair’ Grove wells (125 mg/L), but
other wells with elevated concentrations were found in Chatsworth (51.8 mg/L), Tara (44.5
                  s
mg/L), and Walter’ Falls (42.5 mg/L).

Nitrate is a health related parameter that is known to cause methemoglobinemia (blue baby
syndrome) in infants. Nitrates can originate from several sources including agricultural and
residential fertilizers, wastewater disposal and landfill leachate. The maximum acceptable
                                                                               s
concentration is 10.0 mg/L. Nitrate concentrations recorded in the Engineer’ Reports ranged
from less than the analytical method detection limit, to 6.0 mg/L (the Lake Rosalind well).

Fluoride is a chemical that occurs naturally in many types of rocks, and due to soil weathering it
is found in small amounts (generally less than 0.05 mg/L) in groundwater. However, it can also
come from the infiltration of chemical fertilizers, and from septic system and sewage treatment
effluents from communities with fluoridized water supplies. In high concentrations, fluoride can
cause detrimental health impacts. The maximum acceptable concentration is 1.5 mg/L. The
highest sampled concentration is 2.7 mg/L (the Huronville system), and there are many
municipal wells in Grey and Bruce Counties that have concentrations above the MAC.

Hardness is an operational guideline parameter, which means that it is monitored and controlled
to help ensure efficient treatment and distribution of the water. The divalent cations (calcium and
magnesium) found in the limestone and dolostone aquifers throughout Grey and Bruce Counties
produce the hard water. Hard water promotes scale deposits when the water is heated (i.e. hot
water heaters, kettles) and it also leads to excessive soap consumption. However, there are no
health effects associated with the elevated levels (MOE, 2001). All of the municipal wells in the
Counties exceed the guideline of 80 to 100 mg/L. A value over 200 mg/L is considered
tolerable, and over 500 mg/L is considered unacceptable. The highest levels were found in the
Scott Point wells (1078 mg/L), far above the objective of 100 mg/L.

Iron is an aesthetic objective parameter, which means that it may interfere with good water
quality control practices, but there are no known associated health risks (MOE, 2001). Elevated
levels of iron may lead to staining of laundry or plumbing fixtures, and cause an undesirable
taste in beverages. Of the 45 wells that were sampled for iron, 21 had recorded concentrations
above the recommended limit.

Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness in a sample of water that is caused by suspended fine
particulate matter, and is measured using a light source and a sensor. It is an indicator that the
groundwater system, from which the well draws its water, may be under the direct influence of
surface water. The Ontario Drinking Water Standard for turbidity is 1.0 NTU (Nephelometric



2-16
                                                                       2. Regional Aquifer Characterization



Turbidity Unit), or the well water must be treated. Of the 51 municipal wells sampled, 18 had
turbidity readings of greater than 1.0.
      2.6   Regional Aquifer Characterization
Sections 2.2 to 2.5 provide an analysis of regional groundwater and aquifer characterization, for
which mapping was completed at a scale of 1:650,000. Four (4) additional aquifer
characterization maps were created at a more detailed larger scale of 1:200,000 and plotted on
30” by 36” layouts to present the regional aquifer characterization. Figure 2.27 shows the study
area, and includes the location of the WWIS wells that were used for the data analysis, the
regional cross-section locations, surface water features, and ground surface topography. Figure
2.28 shows the regional Quaternary geology, and includes the contours of overburden
thickness. Figure 2.29 shows the regional bedrock geology, and includes the bedrock geology
classes and bedrock topography contours. Figure 2.30 shows the regional overburden and
bedrock aquifers, and includes the reliable water wells used in the analysis (along with their
completion depth and geology), and the contours of sand and gravel thickness below the water
table as an indication of overburden aquifer locations. These maps were developed to
summarize the regional mapping that was completed as part of this groundwater study.
      2.7   Summary of Regional Aquifer Characterization
Groundwater is one of the safest and cleanest forms of potable water supply, when compared
with surface water. Understanding how groundwater moves through the study area and the
factors that control this movement will help to manage this resource. Regional groundwater and
aquifer characterization was presented in Section 2. Information from many different data
sources, including the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of
Northern Development and Mines, Geologic Survey of Canada, Water Survey Canada, Grey
County, Bruce County, Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, Grey Sauble Conservation
Authority and local municipalities was incorporated into a project database and GIS. The quality
of the different sources of information was evaluated and data that was deemed inaccurate was
removed from subsequent analyses. As part of the regional analysis, water well locations and
reliabilities (Figures 2.1 and 2.2), ground surface topography (Figure 2.3), surface drainage and
stream gauge locations (Figures 2.4A and B) were presented. The surficial geology of the
Counties left by the glaciers is presented in the Quaternary geology map (Figure 2.5) and the
physiography of the Counties is presented in Figure 2.6. The bedrock geology is presented in
the bedrock geology map (Figure 2.7), and the bedrock surface topography map (Figure 2.8).

Regional geologic cross-sections illustrate the Quaternary and bedrock geology, topography,
and their relationships across the study area. The locations of the regional cross-sections are
presented in Figure 2.9, and the cross-sections are presented in Figures 2.10 to 2.17. In
particular, they show the similarity between the bedrock and ground surface topography, the
thinning nature of the overburden from west to east toward the Niagara Escarpment, and the
distribution of sand and gravel units associated with the Port Huron Moraine, in the south central
portion of the study area. Details of the geology and its relationship to the regional water table
and hydrogeology are discussed throughout this report.

The nature of the overburden deposits in Grey and Bruce Counties was investigated and
presented in the depth to bedrock (Figure 2.18), and sand and gravel thickness (Figures 2.19)
maps. The hydrogeology of Grey and Bruce Counties was investigated and presented in the
water table surface (Figure 2.20), bedrock equipotentials (Figure 2.21), and recharge and
discharge areas (Figure 2.22). The water table elevation map and bedrock equipotential map
show regional groundwater flow directions in the overburden and bedrock aquifers, and the
recharge/discharge relationships that exist throughout the Counties.


                                                                                                      2-17
2. Regional Aquifer Characterization




The hydrogeology of Grey and Bruce Counties was conceptualized as a three-layered model
with, from top to bottom, a fine-grained overburden aquitard layer, a thin weathered bedrock
aquifer layer, and a thick unweathered bedrock aquifer. Details of the subsurface hydrogeologic
conditions in the Counties were determined by examining 8 regional cross-sections and many
local cross-sections. The aquifers of Grey and Bruce Counties are summarized in an
overburden aquifer map (Figure 2.23) and a bedrock aquifer map (Figure 2.24). This
conceptualization of regional hydrogeology was used as the basis for the development of the
WHPA models, which are discussed in Section 6. Specific capacity of municipal wells was
assessed, and presented in Figure 2.25, using data from pumping tests of at least a 24-hour
duration. Groundwater quality throughout the Counties was evaluated through a review of raw
                                         s
water quality presented in the Engineer’ Reports for the different municipal wells. Parameters
that were considered in this analysis include chloride, nitrate, fluoride, iron, hardness and
turbidity. This groundwater quality assessment was presented in Figure 2.26.

Finally, the analysis presented in this report provides a regional summary of groundwater and
aquifer characterization in Grey and Bruce Counties. To augment this analysis, 4 additional
maps were created at a scale of 1:200,000 to present the regional aquifer characterization in a
more detailed manner. Figure 2.27 shows the study area and the location of the WWIS wells
that were used for the data analysis. Figure 2.28 shows the regional Quaternary geology, and
includes the overburden thickness contours. Figure 2.29 shows the regional bedrock geology,
and includes the bedrock geology classes and bedrock topography contours. Figure 2.30 shows
the regional overburden and bedrock aquifers, and includes the reliable water wells within the
study area (along with their completion depth and geology), and the contours of sand and gravel
thickness below the water table as an indication of overburden aquifer locations.




2-18
                                                                        3. Intrinsic Susceptibility Assessment




3 Intrinsic Susceptibility Analysis
      3.1   Overview
The susceptibility of an aquifer to contamination is a function of the susceptibility of its recharge
area to the infiltration of contaminants. Groundwater susceptibility to contamination can thus be
defined as: the tendency or likelihood for contaminants to reach a specified position in the
groundwater system after introduction at some location above the uppermost aquifer.
Susceptibility is not an absolute property, but a relative indication of where contamination is
likely to enter the subsurface. It is also necessary to consider long-term effects on groundwater
quality, perhaps over decades, in carrying out a susceptibility analysis.

A number of factors may influence the susceptibility of an aquifer. Areas of high recharge are
generally more susceptible to groundwater contamination than areas where recharge is
restricted. Unconfined aquifers having little cover of fine-grained material are susceptible to
contamination, and fractured bedrock is highly susceptible because of increased pathways for
contaminant movement. However, deeper aquifers confined by a relatively impermeable
formation overlying them tend to be better protected. Water wells can provide a direct pathway
for contaminants from the land surface to the groundwater, if they are not installed and
maintained properly. In addition, wells intersecting two aquifers increase the chance of cross
contamination between the aquifers. Thus, a major consideration in groundwater contamination
is the location and condition of water wells.

Overburden geologic units generally provide the primary protection against groundwater
contamination from the surface. Bacteria, sediment and other insoluble forms of contamination
become trapped or sorbed on soil particles. Some chemicals are absorbed or react chemically
with various soil constituents, thereby preventing or slowing the migration of these contaminants
into the groundwater. In addition, plants and soil microorganisms use some potential
contaminants, such as nitrogen, as nutrients for growth, thereby reducing the amount reaching
the groundwater. These processes are known as natural attenuation processes.

These natural systems can fail if they are overloaded with contaminants. Large amounts of
contaminants concentrated in small areas can thus cause local groundwater contamination,
depending on the depth and type of soil above the water table. To help protect water wells
against contamination, it is important to use the natural protection that soil provides by
maintaining adequate separation distances between wells and potential sources of
contamination. Wellhead protection strategies aim at mitigating or minimizing the potential for
aquifer contamination through proper land use and groundwater management alternatives.

It is costly and time consuming to identify and remediate groundwater contamination after an
aquifer has been impacted, and the aquifer may remain contaminated for years after the source
of contamination has been removed. Therefore, it is often unfeasible to consider groundwater
remediation as a solution. Prevention of groundwater contamination is the key, which includes
identifying the major sources of potential contamination, and controlling them.

In the present regional groundwater study, a preliminary groundwater susceptibility assessment
has been completed. In this section, a brief summary of the approach and results of the
assessment are presented.




                                                                                                          3-1
3. Intrinsic Susceptibility Assessment



        3.2     Methodology and Data Sources
The vulnerability of the groundwater resources in Grey and Bruce Counties was evaluated using
an Intrinsic Susceptibility Index. The Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) is a calculated value that
estimates the susceptibility of the groundwater resource to contamination at each WWIS well in
the study area.

The following process was used to determine the intrinsic susceptibility:

• The geology of each well was evaluated to determine the “    first significant aquifer”;
• The water table map (Figure 2.20) was used as a reference for determining this aquifer;
• The aquifer was classed as either confined or unconfined, depending on the location of the
  water table and the type of geologic material above it;
• The confined/unconfined nature of the aquifer determines the depth overwhich the ISI
  calculations were made;
• The ISI value was then calculated at each well by summing the multiplication of the
  thickness of each unit by the K-factor that represents its geology over this depth;
• The K-factors are defined in the Technical Terms of Reference for the study (MOE, 2001);
• Polygons representing the identified karst areas within the study area were overlain and
  assigned an ISI value of 20 (high susceptibility);
• Polygons representing overburden thickness of less than 6.0 meters were assigned an ISI
  value of 20 (high susceptibility); and,
• The ISI map was re-interpolated across the entire study area to provide an final ISI map.

Following the Technical Terms of Reference, the ISI value at each well in the WWIS was
classified into one of 3 susceptibility groupings: low (ISI > 80), medium (30 £ ISI £ 80) and high
(ISI < 30) (MOE, 2001). Appendix A presents the Process Sheet that describes the methodology
for calculating the ISI value at all WWIS boreholes.
        3.3     Intrinsic Susceptibility Results
The results of the intrinsic susceptibility analysis are presented in Figure 3.1. Medium and high
susceptibility classes are the most important classes to consider, and Figure 3.1 shows that a
large portion of the study area is characterized by medium or high ISI values. In addition, a
1:200,000 map was created on a 30” by 36” layouts to show Intrinsic Susceptibility at a more
detailed larger scale. Figure 3.2 shows the regional Intrinsic Susceptibility, and includes the
identified karst areas and contaminant sources.

High susceptibility results from the presence of high permeability overburden units with little, or
no, low conductivity layers protecting the first significant aquifer. In areas of high susceptibility
located near municipal pumping wells, appropriate planning measures should be designed to
restrict development in such areas. Such planning measures could include a requirement that
developers must perform site-specific investigation of aquifer susceptibility, and demonstrate
that the proposed development will have a negligible impact on the groundwater supply aquifer.

Areas of low susceptibility occur mainly in the southwest portion of Bruce County, and
correspond to the fine-textured Quaternary deposits of the Huron Slope, which is illustrated in
Figure 2.5. This fine-grained surface material restricts the downward movement of infiltrating
surface water, making the underlying groundwater much less susceptible to associated
contamination.




3-2
                                                                        3. Intrinsic Susceptibility Assessment



The Bruce Peninsula is an area of high susceptibility for impacts to groundwater. This is the
result of the thin and discontinuous nature of the Quaternary cover material providing little
protection to the underlying bedrock. This was definitively demonstrated in the karst field
investigation and geomorphological inventory of the Upper Bruce Peninsula (Canadian Parks
Service, 1994), which found karst caves, sinkholes, ponors (sinking streams), sinking lakes,
springs and three types of karst pavement.

The remainder of the study area consists of a zone of high susceptibility trending from the base
of the Bruce Peninsula to the southeast corner of Grey County. This corresponds roughly to the
occurrence of the Guelph aquifer which underlies this area. The higher susceptibility rating for
this unit is related to the fact that it is generally more permeable than other bedrock units in the
area. The remainder of the study area is classified as being medium susceptibility.
      3.4   Summary of Intrinsic Susceptibility Analysis
Groundwater intrinsic susceptibility for the uppermost significant aquifer was assessed using
information contained within the MOE Water Well Information System and information on the
location of identified karst features in Grey and Bruce Counties.

The approach followed the method outlined in the MOE Technical Terms of Reference. This
method considers the thickness of the different geologic strata as well as their permeability
through the use of a K-factor. Polygons representing the identified karst areas (caves,
sinkholes, sinking streams, sinking lakes, and karst pavement) within the study area were
overlain, incorporated into the GIS and given a high susceptibility value. Within the uppermost
aquifer system, areas of low, medium, and high susceptibility were identified using MOE
susceptibility classes (low (ISI > 80), medium (30 £ ISI £ 80) and high (ISI < 30)). Areas of
medium or high susceptibility result from the presence high permeability units in the overburden
with little, or no, low conductivity layers overlying the uppermost significant aquifer. Some areas
of Bruce County were characterized by low susceptibility due to the thick units of fine-textured
Quaternary deposits.

In areas of high susceptibility near municipal pumping wells, it is recommended that municipal
planning measures be developed to restrict development, or to require local-scale
hydrogeologic investigations that assess the vulnerability of the aquifer to contamination.




                                                                                                          3-3
                                                                              4. Groundwater Use Assessment




4 Groundwater Use Assessment
      4.1   Overview
A groundwater use assessment was completed to estimate the degree, purpose and distribution
of groundwater use in the study area to provide an overview of existing pressures on the
quantity of local groundwater resources. To achieve these objectives, it was first necessary to
analyze population statistics and agricultural land use within the Counties. By completing an
estimate of existing groundwater use, the study will contribute to a future water budget study,
which can investigate the factors influencing the availability of groundwater, and the potential
future demands on water supply. There are two categories of water use: public supply and self
supply. Within these categories, groundwater use in the study area can be grouped according to
the following uses:

•   public supply (municipal, communal, recreational);
•   self supply (private domestic);
•   self supply (agricultural-livestock, irrigation);
•   self supply (industrial-manufacturing, commercial, institutional); and,
•   self supply (industrial-mining).

To ensure sustainable growth, the rate of groundwater extraction should be based on the rate of
groundwater recharge and the maintenance of satisfactory baseflow levels in local streams. If
groundwater use exceeds groundwater recharge, an overdraft (or “             )
                                                                     mining” will occur which
would result in impacts to streams and reduce the total available groundwater resource. An
understanding of the distribution of groundwater use in Grey and Bruce Counties is essential to
managing this resource. This assessment of water use and the groundwater budget will assist in
determining reasonable levels of water use.
      4.2   Methodology and Data Sources
Data for the groundwater use assessment was obtained from various sources, including the
                                                                                     s
MOE Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database, public water supply reports (Engineer’ Reports),
the MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS), and Certificates of Approval. Information was
also obtained from surveys of public water supply systems and large-scale permitted water
users, whose permitted groundwater taking is greater than 200,000 L/day. A groundwater use
assessment was undertaken to compile and evaluate the existing information, and to better
understand the distribution of water taking throughout the Counties on a watershed level.
      4.3   Population and Land Use
            4.3.1 Population
The populations of Grey and Bruce Counties at the time of the 2001 census were 89,073 and
63,892, respectively. The population of the Counties, based on Municipality, is presented in
Table 4.1. The City of Owen Sound is the largest urban center in the Counties, with a population
of 21,431 (2001 Census). Other urban centers in Grey County include: Hanover (6,869),
Meaford (4,524), Durham (2,647), Wiarton (2,349), Dundalk (1,972 people), Chesley (1,880),
Thornbury (1,771), Markdale (1,433), and Paisley (1,033). Urban centers in Bruce County
include Port Elgin (6,445), Kincardine (6,113), Walkerton (4,851), Southampton (3,075),
Mildmay (1,150), Lucknow (1,136), and Teeswater (1,109). Although the First Nations Reserves
(FNRs) are not part of the scope for this study, their population statistics are included in Table
4.1 to display the complete breakdown of the population of Grey and Bruce Counties.




                                                                                                        4-1
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



Grey and Bruce Counties are primarily agricultural with activity that includes beef, dairy and hog
operations, as well as cash-crop farming and an apple industry. Other industry within the
Counties includes hardwood and softwood timber production, commercial fishing and year-
round recreation and tourism.

Table 4.1:    POPULATION ESTIMATES OF GREY AND BRUCE COUNTIES BY MUNICIPALITY
 County           Municipality                               2001 Census Population
 Grey             Township of Georgian Bluffs                                 10,152
                  Township of Chatsworth                                       6,280
                  Municipality of West Grey                                   11,741
                  Township of Southgate                                        6,907
                  Town of Hanover                                              6,869
                  Municipality of Grey Highlands                               9,196
                  City of Owen Sound                                          21,431
                  Municipality of Meaford                                     10,381
                  Town of The Blue Mountains                                   6,116
                                                                              89,073
 Bruce            Municipality of Arran-Elderslie                              6,577
                  Town of South Bruce Peninsula                                8,090
                  Municipality of Brockton                                     9,658
                  Township of Huron-Kinloss                                    6,224
                  Municipality of South Bruce                                  6,063
                  Municipality of Kincardine                                  11,029
                  Town of Saugeen Shores                                      11,388
                  Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula                     3,599
                  FNR – Saugeen 29                                               677
                  FNR – Neyaashiinigmiing                                        587
                                                                              63,892


              4.3.2 Land Use
Land use throughout the study area is presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Information that was
used to complete this mapping was provided by the Bruce County Planning Department and the
Grey County Planning Department. The land uses have been divided into 10 categories:

      •   Agricultural/Special Agricultural                  •   Industrial
      •   Mineral Resource Extraction                        •   Wetlands
      •   Hamlet                                             •   Inland Lakes/Shoreline
      •   Niagara Escarpment Plan Area                       •   Hazard Lands
      •   Commercial                                         •   Urban/Urban Fringe

Much of Grey and Bruce Counties is designated as either i) agricultural/forestry/rural, or ii)
parks/recreational/protected. The Niagara Escarpment, which is a striking feature of the study
area running from the northern Bruce Peninsula to the northern portion of Grey County, is
designated as parks/recreational/protected. There are also large areas through the Counties
that are designated as lakes and wetlands. Scattered throughout the study area are urban
areas, which can be identified as residential/commercial/institutional.
              4.3.3 Agricultural Land Use
Potential impacts of agricultural activities on the natural environmental include contamination
from excessive nutrients, pathogens, sediment, pesticides and organic materials. These


4-2
                                                                          4. Groundwater Use Assessment



contaminants could potentially affect the colour, smell and taste of water, and can be
represented by four distinct components:

   • Extent of agriculture within an area, which is represented by the fraction of agricultural
     land within the total area.
   • Nature of agricultural activity There are two major interrelated biological systems
     involved in agricultural production activities: those related to crop production and those
     related to livestock production.
   • Intensity of the agricultural activities as indicated by the levels of management
     (livestock type and quantity, tillage, nutrient amendments and pesticides) compared to
     levels normally used in agricultural enterprises.
   • Proximity is an indication of the connection pathway between agricultural activities and
     the component of the agro-ecosystem resource under consideration. For example, crop
     production on tile drained land or adjacent to streams or drainage ditches is more likely
     to result in contamination of surface water than on land that is farther from surface
     drainage.

Data from the 2001 Census of Agriculture was used to assess each of these components. As a
basis for comparison, a similar analysis was carried out for the Census Agricultural Region of
Western Ontario. This region includes the Counties of Bruce, Grey, Huron, Perth, Simcoe,
Halton, Wellington, Waterloo, Dufferin and Peel. Agricultural activities in Grey and Bruce
Counties are relatively homogeneous across the 17 municipalities within the Counties. The
results of the analysis have been summarized in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

Extent
The total area of each municipality was calculated by summing the various townships in the new
municipality configuration as documented in Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA)
Report No. 8 “                                                                      .
                 Acreages of Soil Capability Classes for Agriculture in Ontario” The area of
farmland is reported in the 2001 Census of Agriculture. Extent of agricultural operations is
presented as a percentage of the total municipal land area that is designated farmland.
Agriculture is the major land use throughout the Counties (~60% for Bruce County and ~52% for
Grey County), which is approximately the same as the average percentage of land used for
agriculture for the Western Ontario Region. This indicates that agricultural activities will have a
major impact on all aspects of environmental quality.

Nature of Agricultural Activity
The nature of the agricultural activity was estimated using the farm type classifications in the
2001 Census of Agriculture. For this analysis the specific classes were grouped into livestock
farms and crop farms. This shows that for much of the area, the percentage of livestock farms
equals or exceeds the average for the Western Ontario Region. For livestock farms, the
operators should minimize potential risks to water quality both from livestock operations
(facilities, manure storage, application, etc.) as well as crop production activities (nutrient
management, pesticides, sediment, etc.). Areas with a low percentage livestock farms will have
a correspondingly high percentage of crop farms.

Intensity
Intensity was calculated by summing the portion of total farmland that is used for crops (annual
and perennial). This measure provides an indication of the quantity of land on farms that receive
most of the management attention by the farm operator. The Grey-Bruce area is quite variable




                                                                                                    4-3
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



in terms of the proportion of cropland. The highest proportion of cropland is in the southwestern
part of the region, while there is a relatively low percentage of cropland in the Bruce Peninsula.

Table 4.2:      AGRICULTURAL ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF BRUCE COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                                          Bruce County
                                                     South Bruce




                                                                                                                                                 South Bruce
                                                                                                Kincardine
                                         Peninsula


                                                      Peninsula




                                                                                                              Brockton
                                         Northern




                                                                   Saugeen




                                                                               Elderslie




                                                                                                                                                                                          Western
                                                                                                                              Kinloss




                                                                                                                                                                                          Ontario
                                                                    Shores




                                                                                                                              Huron-
                                                                                Arran-
                                           Bruce
 Municipality Attribute



 Farmland as a percentage
                                           28          38           53          83             68            83                83               53                       61                62
 of total area
 Land in crops
                                           15          38           60          50             60            60                60               60                       50                71
 (percentage of farmland)
 Crop intensity (percentage of land
                                           20          20           70          45             60            60                70               70                       52                66
 in corn, soybeans, cereals)
 Crop Intensity (average N required
                                           68          66           43          63             48            55                48               63                       57                58
 by major field crops kg/Ha)
 Average number of
                                          0.45       0.60          0.45         1.0            0.60          1.0              0.60              0.68                     0.67             0.59
 cattle per ha farmland
 Average number of
                                          0.03       0.03          0.03        0.30            0.50          0.90             0.50              0.90                     0.40             1.14
 hogs per ha farmland
 Average number of
                                           0.5        0.5           0.5         0.5              3             3                6                 6                      2.5              11.8
 hens per ha farmland
 Percent farms classed as livestock
                                           70          78           50          83             70            70                50               78                       69                66
 (cattle, hogs, poultry, sheep, other)


Table 4.3:      AGRICULTURAL ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF GREY COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                           Grey County
                                                                                  Chatsworth
                                                                   Mountains




                                                                                                                                    Southgate
                                                                                                                  West Grey
                                                                                               Highlands
                                         Georgian




                                                                   The Blue
                                                       Meaford




                                                                                                                                                                               Western
                                                                                                                                                                               Ontario
                                          Bluffs




                                                                                                 Grey




 Municipality Attribute



 Farmland as a percentage
                                           53         53             38           38              53             53              68                       51                         62
 of total area
 Land in crops
                                           38         50             60           50              50             60              60                       53                         71
 (percentage of farmland)
 Crop intensity (percentage of land
                                           30         30             30           30              30             45              45                       34                         66
 in corn, soybeans, cereals)
 Crop Intensity (average N required
                                           68         63             43           63              55             55              63                       59                         58
 by major field crops kg/Ha)
 Average number of
                                          0.60       0.45          0.30         0.68           0.45           0.60              0.68                 0.54                       0.59
 cattle per ha farmland
 Average number of
                                          0.03       0.13          0.50         0.13           0.13           0.30              0.30                 0.22                       1.14
 hogs per ha farmland
 Average number of
                                          0.5        1.5            0.5          1.5            0.5              14                  6                  3.5                     11.8
 hens per ha farmland
 Percent farms classed as livestock
                                           83         70             28           78              78             78              70                       69                         66
 (cattle, hogs, poultry, sheep, other)


Crop Intensity Factor
The intensity of cropping from the standpoint of nutrient loading was evaluated by calculating
the average annual quantity of supplemental nitrogen required for annual crop production, as
reported in the Census of Agriculture (based on 1995 – 1996 Field Crop Recommendations,
OMAF Publication 296). Annual crops represent greater levels of intensity than perennials.
Areas with a higher percentage of annual crops require relatively large quantities of
supplemental nutrients, a mix of pesticides and substantial tillage.




4-4
                                                                           4. Groundwater Use Assessment



For the Grey-Bruce area, annual crops are assumed to be in a 3 year intensive crop rotation,
which provides maximum economic productivity in an environmentally sustainable fashion
consisting of corn, soybeans and cereals. The calculation is based on area of cropland, which
also includes the forage component of the rotation. Tables 2.6 and 2.7 show that there is little
variation in the levels of supplemental nitrogen required. However, in more northerly areas, the
values are somewhat higher. This occurs because of the predominance of corn and limited area
of soybeans.

The average density of the various species of livestock per area of farmland was used to
provide an indication of livestock intensity. It is instructive to note that the ruminant species
(cattle and sheep) will typically spend a portion of their time on pasture where the manure is
directly deposited and where they may have occasion to contaminate surface watercourses
directly. In addition, manure handling for sheep and beef will most likely be in solid form. For
dairy, there will be a mix of solid and liquid handling operations. Pigs and poultry will be raised
in confinement. In most cases, the hog manure will be handled in liquid form while the poultry
manure will be managed in solid form. Both of these types of operation frequently rely on feed
(with added nutrients) that is purchased off farm and therefore, residual nutrients must also be
managed.

Table 4.2 and 4.3 include the average number of cattle, hogs and hens per hectare of farmland
for the Grey-Bruce area. Clearly, there is a wide range of intensity by this measure. While the
relationship between the number of livestock and farm area is not as direct as with grazing
animals, this representation provides an indication of the area available to manage the manure
produced. Overall livestock intensity is a combination of each of these components (cattle, hogs
and poultry), along with other livestock such as sheep and horses.

The agricultural land use analysis shows that agricultural activities are highly variable across the
area. The variation in patterns of livestock activities may be important in assessing the potential
impact of agricultural operations on water resources.
      4.4   Groundwater Use Assessment Results
Groundwater use for Grey and Bruce Counties was obtained primarily from the MOE Permit to
Take Water (PTTW) database. Water use in excess of 50,000 L/day (7 Imperial gallons per
minute), requires a permit. The PTTW database includes information associated with each
permit (e.g. issue date, expiration date, location, and maximum permitted pumping rates). Water
takings from surface water (e.g. ponds, rivers or lakes), from groundwater (e.g. wells or
springs), or from a combination of surface water and groundwater requires a permit.

There are 422 permits in the PTTW database for the study area, each of which may have
multiple records, corresponding to separate water sources (i.e. well, spring or pond). The 422
permits correspond to 553 records in the PTTW database. These 422 permits can be further
categorized according to water source:

• 168 permits are from a surface water source (pond); and,
• 213 permits are from a groundwater source (well or spring);
• 41 permits are from combined surface and groundwater sources.

For the groundwater use assessment, the 254 groundwater and combined permits were
assessed. Figure 4.3 presents the locations of the groundwater permits in the Counties
classified by maximum permitted rate. Of these 254 groundwater related permits, there are:



                                                                                                     4-5
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



•      156 active permits (i.e. having an expiration date later than January 1, 2002);
•      96 large-scale permits (maximum permitted rate of greater than 200,000 L/day);
•      37 large-scale permits that are classified as commercial, industrial, de-watering; and,
•      33 permittees holding the 37 permits.

These 33 large-scale, active, industrial groundwater users were surveyed to obtain information
on actual water taking. A copy of the questionnaire that was sent to these large-scale users can
be found in Appendix B.
                 4.4.1 Rural Domestic Groundwater Use
Rural domestic groundwater use was determined using estimates of the rural populations in the
Counties, and a water-use factor. The rural population was estimated for each township by
subtracting the population of towns with a municipal groundwater supply from the township
population. Township population statistics were obtained from the Statistics Canada 2001
Census, and the Engineer's Reports were used to estimate the population serviced by municipal
groundwater. Table 4.4 summarizes the population on municipal groundwater and municipal
surface water, and the net rural population using private groundwater wells.

TABLE 4.4:          POPULATION STATISTICS BY MUNICIPALITY AND WATERSHED
     County     Municipality                      Municipal           Municipal            Rural       Total
                                                Population on       Population on      Population on
                                                Groundwater         Surface Water      Groundwater
     Grey       Georgian Bluffs                      667                  –               9,485 1.     10,152
                Chatsworth                           650                  –                5,630        6,280
                West Grey                           2,447                 –                9,294       11,741
                Southgate                           1,972                 –                4,935        6,907
                Hanover                             6,600                 –                 269         6,869
                Grey Highlands                      1,997                 –                7,199        9,196
                Owen Sound                            –                21,431                –         21,341
                Meaford                               –                 4,524             5,857 1.     10,381
                The Blue Mountains                    –                 1,771             4,345 1.      6,116
                             County Total          14,333              27,726             47,014       89,073
     Bruce      Arran-Elderslie                     2,622               1,033              2,922        6,577
                South Bruce Peninsula                840                2,349              4,901        8,090
                Brockton                            5,081                 –                4,577        9,658
                Huron-Kinloss                       5,439                 –                 785         6,224
                South Bruce                         2,200                 –                3,863        6,063
                Kincardine                          1,103               6,113              3,813       11,029
                Saugeen Shores                        –                 9,520              1,868       11,388
                Northern Bruce Peninsula              –                  500              3,099 1.      3,599
                IR – Combined                         –                   –               1,264 1.      1,264
                             County Total          17,285              19,515             27,092       63,892
     Watershed
     Saugeen Valley CA                              25,597              16,201              35,413
     Grey Sauble CA                                  4,150              30,756              36,489
     Maitland Valley CA                              2,230                 –                  322
     Grand River CA                                   158                  –                  395
     Nottawasaga Valley CA                            220                283                 1,487
                         Watershed Total            32,355              47,240              74,106
1.
     This assumes rural population uses private water wells, even though some use surface water




4-6
                                                                               4. Groundwater Use Assessment



Table 4.5 presents the results of rural domestic groundwater use in Grey and Bruce Counties.
Population estimates were obtained from Table 4.4, and the water-use factor (175 L/day per
person) was obtained from the Technical Terms of Reference (MOE, 2001). The results show
that rural domestic groundwater use is 12,969 m3/day (4.73 million m3/year). It should be noted
that some rural residents along the Georgian Bay shoreline use surface water for domestic use.
As a result, the groundwater use in Table 4.5 is slightly overestimated.

Rural groundwater use was also estimated by watershed. This was accomplished by estimating
the percentage of each township lying within the five conservation areas occurring in Grey and
Bruce Counties, and multiplying rural population by the water-use factor. Watershed boundaries
were obtained from the Saugeen River and Grey Sauble Conservation Authorities, which are
presented in Figure 2.2.

TABLE 4.5:      RURAL GROUNDWATER USE BY MUNICIPALITY AND WATERSHED
 County      Municipality                  Rural Population   Estimated Rural
                                                              Groundwater Use
                                                                  (m3/day)
 Grey       Georgian Bluffs                     9,485               1,660
            Chatsworth                          5,630                985
            West Grey                           9,294               1,627
            Southgate                           4,935                864
            Hanover                              269                  47
            Grey Highlands                      7,199               1,260
            Owen Sound                            –                   –
            Meaford                             5,857               1,025
            The Blue Mountains                  4,345                760
                            County Total       47,014               8,228
 Bruce      Arran-Elderslie                     2,922                512
            South Bruce Peninsula               4,901                858
            Brockton                            4,577                801
            Huron-Kinloss                        785                 137
            South Bruce                         3,863                676
            Kincardine                          3,813                667
            Saugeen Shores                      1,868                327
            Northern Bruce Peninsula            3,099                542
            Indian Reserves                     1,264                221
                            County Total       27,092               4,741
                                   Total       74,106              12,969
 Watershed
 Saugeen Valley CA                             35,413                  6,197
 Grey Sauble CA                                36,489                  6,386
 Maitland Valley CA                              322                     56
 Grand River CA                                  395                     69
 Nottawasaga Valley CA                          1,487                   260
                        Watershed Total        74,106                 12,969


             4.4.2 Municipal Groundwater Use
There are 48 municipal groundwater systems in Grey and Bruce Counties, as defined in the
Terms of Reference. However, due to changes in the use of these systems, six (6) were taken
off-line and only 42 were analyzed for this groundwater study including 13 in Grey County and
29 in Bruce County. The majority of these systems are completed in bedrock, which is further



                                                                                                         4-7
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



discussed for each system in Section 6, Groundwater Modeling. Information about each
                                               s
municipal system was obtained from Engineer’ Reports, as well as from municipal surveys.
             s
The Engineer’ Reports contain most of the following information:

•     Water Works number, Certificate of Approval number and PTTW number;
•     Design capacity, permitted capacity and population served;
•     Total raw water flow (by month and year) and average daily flow (by month),
•     UTM coordinates of the well(s) and the plant.

As part of the groundwater use assessment, the operator for each of the municipal groundwater
supply systems in Grey and Bruce Counties was contacted and asked to provide the following
                                                                           s
information, to confirm and/or complete the data obtained from the Engineer’ Reports:

• MOE well number, Certificate of Approval number and PTTW number; and,
• Average daily raw water flow rate for the last 5 years.

The results of the Municipal Water Supply Survey are summarized in Table 4.6. Appendix C
                                                                                       s
contains the original survey results, along with data collected from the First Engineer’ Reports.

TABLE 4.6:       MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER USE BY MUNICIPALITY AND WATERSHED
 County      Municipality                      Municipal          Municipal
                                             Population on     Groundwater Use
                                             Groundwater           (m3/day)
 Grey       Georgian Bluffs                       667                 208
            Chatsworth                            650                 170
            West Grey                            3,184               1,463
            Southgate                            1,972                660
            Hanover                              6,600               1,753
            Grey Highlands                       1,997               3,490
            Owen Sound                             -                   -
            Meaford                                -                   -
            The Blue Mountains                     -                   -
                            County Total        15,070               7,744
 Bruce      Arran-Elderslie                      2,622               1,262
            South Bruce Peninsula                 840                 198
            Brockton                             5,081               5,756
            Huron-Kinloss                        5,439               2,030
            South Bruce                          2,200               1,047
            Kincardine                           1,103                579
            Saugeen Shores                         -                   -
            Northern Bruce Peninsula               -                   -
            First Nation Reserves                  -                   -
                            County Total        17,285              10,872
                                   Total        32,355              18,616
 Watershed
 Saugeen Valley CA                               25,597              16,176
 Grey Sauble CA                                   4,150               1,237
 Maitland Valley CA                               2,230                541
 Grand River CA                                    158                 660
 Nottawasaga Valley CA                             220                  -
                         Watershed Total         32,355              18,616




4-8
                                                                         4. Groundwater Use Assessment



Surface water takings for municipal supply are not considered in the water budget for Grey and
Bruce Counties. The majority of municipal surface water systems take water from Lake Huron or
Georgian Bay, which does not significantly affect the water balance of the watersheds. The
municipal populations in Grey and Bruce Counties that are serviced by surface water supply
include the former Towns of Kincardine, Port Elgin and Southampton, which use water from
Lake Huron for municipal supply, and the City of Owen Sound, the former Towns of Wiarton,
                                                       s
Meaford and Thornbury, and the former Village of Lion’ Head, which use water from Georgian
Bay for municipal supply. The former Village of Paisley, in the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie,
uses water from a reservoir on the Saugeen River for municipal supply.
            4.4.3 Communal and Campground Groundwater Use
There are 10 permit holders in Grey and Bruce Counties that have active groundwater permits
for water supply that relate to communal or campground use. Communal and campground use
within the study area, based on maximum permitted rate, is 2,971 m3 /day.
            4.4.4 Industrial, Commercial and Dewatering Groundwater Use
The MOE Technical Terms of Reference state the need to estimate groundwater use by large-
scale Industrial groundwater users. Large-scale groundwater use is defined as a permitted
withdrawal of greater than 200,000 L/day. The following information was obtained from the
PTTW database, to conduct a survey of large-scale groundwater users:

•   Permit number;
•   General and specific purpose;
•   Maximum permitted water taking (L/day);
•   Days per year of taking; and,
•   Identity of the largest water users.

Large-scale groundwater users were surveyed by telephone, on their water taking, in the
summer of 2002. To evaluate the volume of water being pumped at these locations and to
collect additional information about the location and status of the pumping well, the following
questions were asked:

•   What is the location of your well(s)?
•   What is your well currently being used for?
•   Is there a secondary use for your well?
•   What is the depth and diameter of the well?
•   When was the well drilled?
•   Who is the original owner of the well?
•   What months of the year do you pump water?
•   How many days a month do you pump water?
•   How many hours a day do you pump water? and,
•   What is the capacity of your pump?

The survey results are presented in Appendix B, and summarized in Table 4.7. Surveys were
sent out to the 33 permittees that hold the 37 permits. Groundwater use for these permits
included quarry operation (aggregate washing, quarry dewatering), aquaculture (fish hatchery
operations), bottled water operations, golf course irrigation, forestry operations and recreation.
Even though the water used for quarry and aquaculture operations is commonly discharged to
surface water shortly after use, which returns the water to the hydrologic cycle, these operations
are still required to have permits to take water. Results were obtained from 21 of the 33 permit


                                                                                                   4-9
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



holders. In most instances, actual groundwater use was not known. To be conservative, the
maximum permitted withdrawal rate was used to estimate the large-scale groundwater use in
the water budget, which discussed in Section 4.5. Large-scale groundwater use within the study
area, based on maximum permitted rate, is 241,694 m3/day. However, some of the permit
locations are within the 5 kilometre buffer, and therefore, large-scale groundwater use in the
Counties is 207,617 m3 /day.

TABLE 4.7:    LARGE-SCALE WATER USER SURVEY RESULTS
  Large PTTW Holder      Permit     Municipality                    Water Use                  Reply     Maximum
                                                                                                          PTTW
                                                                                                           Rate
                                                                                                         (m3/day)
  Georgian Aggregates            01-P-1036 Clearview                  Aggregate washing           Yes       25,094
                                 96-P-5019 Clearview                  Dewatering of quarry        Yes        5,460
   E.C. King Contracting         77-P-1051 Saugeen Shores             Aggregate washing           Yes        2,621
                                 99-P-1125 Georgian Bluffs            Aggregate washing           Yes        6,480
   Wayne Schwartz Constr         01-P-1106 Chatsworth                 Aggregate washing           Yes          818
   Robert A. Livingstone         84-P-1004 The Blue Mountains         Aquaculture                 Yes
   Springhills Trout Farm        79-P-1207 Chatsworth                 Aquaculture                 Yes          7,855
   MNR/Chatsworth Fishery        71-P-0158 Chatsworth                 Aquaculture                 Yes          6,546
                                 73-P-0153 Chatsworth                 Aquaculture                 Yes          9,819
   Aquafarms 93                  00-P-1365 Chatsworth                 Commercial water            Yes          3,448
   Trillium Springs Fish Farm 98-P-1101 Chatsworth                    Fish hatchery               Yes          3,928
   Lake Huron Fishing Club       85-P-1028 Saugeen Shores             Fish hatchery               Yes            720
                                 91-P-0011 Kincardine                 Fish hatchery               Yes          2,062
   Gibraltar Springs             92-P-0099 The Blue Mountains         Bottled water               Yes          1,473
   Artemesia Waters Ltd.         99-p-1011 Grey Highlands             Bottled water               Yes            484
   QTF Foods Inc.                93-P-0058 Kincardine                 Food processing             Yes         65,472
   Saugeen Golf Club             96-P-1018 Saugeen Shores             Irrigation – Golf Course    Yes          1,904
   Walkerton Golf Club           64-P-0351 Brockton                   Irrigation – Golf Course    Yes            546
   Stone Tree Golf Club          98-P-1096 Owen Sound                 Irrigation – Golf Course    Yes          1,650
   Interforest Ltd.              97-P-1067 West Grey                  Forestry Operation          Yes          7,965
   Patricia Bain                 65-P-0656 Chatsworth                 Recreational                Yes
   Frank Beirnes                 93-P-0060 Chatsworth                 Bottled Water               Yes            455
   Harold Sutherland             01-P-1082 Georgian Bluffs            Quarry Dewatering           Yes          2,160
   Grey County, Hwy Dept         98-P-1100 Grey Highlands             Quarry Dewatering           Yes          7,200
   Brick Brewing Company         92-P-0059 South Bruce                Brewing and Soft Drinks                  2,724
                                 00-P-1030 South Bruce                Brewing and Soft Drinks                    655
   Tymatts Development Inc       01-P-1031 Clearview                  Irrigation – Golf Course                 2,159
   Fairlee Juice                 92-P-0057 Southgate                  Bottled Water                              598
   Mel McKean Investments        91-P-0019 Clearview                  Industrial                               1,364
   Steve McKague                 00-P-1202 South Bruce                Aggregate Washing                        7,680
   Clearly Canadian              92-P-0005 South Bruce                Bottled Water                           11,356
   Salvatore Carapino            93-P-0070 South Bruce Pen.           Aquaculture                                464
   Bryan Van Den Bosch           99-P-1271 West Grey                  Aquaculture                                982
   Tadcaster Developments        93-P-0023 Grey Highlands             Bottled Water                            1,473
   Robert Charter                80-P-1021 South Bruce                Aquaculture                              3,496
   Jim Taylor                    92-P-0069 West Grey                  Aquaculture                             21,930
   Al Boogerman                  99-P-1128 West Grey                  Aquaculture                             22,653
                33                   37                                                            21      241,6941.
1.
   Four (4) permits are within the buffer area. Thus, Large-Scale water use in the Counties is 207,617 m3/day


              4.4.5 Agricultural Groundwater Use
Agricultural groundwater water use was compiled by the Rob de Loe Consulting Services for the
Ministry of Natural Resources for all of Ontario. The results for Grey and Bruce Counties are
presented in Table 4.8 (de Loe, 2002).


4-10
                                                                                        4. Groundwater Use Assessment




In Table 4.8, the number of farms refers to farms reporting gross farm receipts over $2500.
Livestock refers to water used for animal drinking, washing and cooling, as well as washing
barns, equipment and spillage losses. Field water use includes irrigation, crop spraying,
equipment washing and other minor uses. The category ‘      fruit’refers to water use for irrigation,
herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide sprays, as well as frost protection, sanitation and
processing on fruit farms. ‘Vegetables’refers to water used in vegetable farms including water
used in irrigation, crop spraying, harvest water use, equipment washing, processing and other
minor uses. Fruit, field, and vegetable crops are grown in the summer. ‘      Specialty crops’ are
grown both in the summer (nursery stock and sod), and year round (greenhouse crops and
mushrooms). Water use associated with specialty crops includes irrigation, pesticide spraying,
equipment washing and other minor uses. The total cited in Table 4.8 refers to the total water
takings of Livestock farms, and Fruit, Field, Vegetable, and Specialty crops.

TABLE 4.8:       AGRICULTURAL WATER USE BY MUNICIPALITY AND WATERSHED
Municipality                Number Livestock  Field   Fruits   Vege-                       Specialty Total
                              of             Crops             tables                       Crops
                            Farms1 (m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day) (m3/day)                     (m3/day) (m3/day)
Georgian Bluffs                270        707.5         3.4         6.3          2.5           0.0        719.7
Chatsworth                     353        862.8         5.1         36.2        54.3          170.3       1128.6
West Grey                      583        1669.1        10.3       117.5        16.7          251.9       2065.5
Southgate                      440        1347.6        8.6         0.0         56.0          166.5       1578.8
Grey Highlands                 446        1026.7        6.5        110.7        11.7          124.9       1280.5
Meaford                        303        615.7         4.1        1250.4       50.9          162.3       2083.5
The Blue Mountains             150        193.2         2.2        3449.6        4.4           0.0        3649.4
Arran-Elderslie                335        1663.7        10.1        0.0          7.1           0.0        1680.9
South Bruce Peninsula          142        406.7         1.4        114.4         8.1          19.5        550.2
Brockton                       458        1700.0        15.7        0.0          6.8          35.2        1757.6
Huron-Kinloss                  310        1010.2        15.5        54.4        190.9          0.6        1271.7
South Bruce                    476        1892.3        17.7        0.0         423.9          0.0        2333.9
Kincardine                     340        995.5         12.6        50.2        458.8         32.4        1549.4
Saugeen Shores                 88         134.2         4.6        100.4         5.4           0.0        244.6
Northern Bruce Peninsula       81         351.5         1.1         0.0          0.8          125.1       478.5
Total                         4,775       14,577        119        5,290        1,298         1,089       22,373
Watershed
SVCA                         3,032      9,891.7        88.1       352.6         1,110.4       596.9      12,039.6
GSCA                         1,503      4,009.1        22.6      4,349.9         103.1        463.3       8,947.9
MVCA                          127        414.2         6.4         22.3           78.3          0.3        521.4
GRCA                          35         107.8         0.7          0.0           4.5          13.3        126.3
NVCA                          78         154.1         1.1        565.2           2.1          15.0        737.6
Total                        4,775       14,577        119        5,290          1,298        1,089       22,373
1
  Number of farms was calculated on a township level. An equal spatial distribution of farms throughout the township
was assumed to estimate the number of farms in each of the watersheds in Grey and Bruce Counties.

In Grey and Bruce Counties, there are half as many farms in the GSCA as there are in the
SVCA. This is a result of the poorer growing conditions on the Bruce Peninsula due to the
limited soil coverage (shallow overburden). There is also more livestock, vegetable and
specialty farming in the SVCA, whereas there is more fruit farming in the GSCA.
               4.4.6 Other Groundwater Use
Other groundwater takers in Grey and Bruce Counties include construction projects (i.e. road
building), pumping tests, and other short term pumping uses. Following the Technical Terms of



                                                                                                                   4-11
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



Reference (MOE, 2002), these short-term groundwater extractions were disregarded as they
represent relatively small water use and do not represent continuous long-term pumping.
              4.4.7 Total Groundwater Use
Table 4.9 presents groundwater use by municipality and watershed. Total groundwater use was
calculated by summing groundwater use from domestic (rural and municipal), industrial and
commercial (large-scale users), and agricultural sources. At the watershed level, 98% of
groundwater taken in Grey and Bruce Counties occurs within the watersheds of the Saugeen
Valley Conservation Authority and the Grey Sauble Conservation Authorities.

TABLE 4.9:       TOTAL GROUNDWATER USE BY MUNICIPALITY AND WATERSHED
Municipality                Rural        Municipal Communal / Large-scale Agricultural  Total
                           Domestic      Domestic Campgrounds   Users
                           (m3/day)      (m3/day)   (m3/day)   (m3/day)    (m3/day)    (m3/day)
Georgian Bluffs                 1,660      208         129         8,640       720      11,357
Chatsworth                       985       170          –          32,869     1,129     35,153
West Grey                       1,626     1,463        288         53,530     2,065     58,972
Southgate                        864       660         416          598       1,579      4,117
Hanover                           47      1,753         –            –          –        1,800
Grey Highlands                  1,260     3,490         –          9,157      1,281     15,188
Owen Sound                         –         –          –          1,650        –        1,650
Meaford                         1,025        –          –            --       2,083      3,108
The Blue Mountains               760         –        1,308        1,473      3,649      7,190
Arran-Elderslie                  511      1,262        197           –        1,681      3,651
South Bruce Peninsula            858       198          –           464        550       2,070
Brockton                         801      5,756         –           546       1,758      8,861
Huron-Kinloss                    137      2,030        267           –        1,272      3,706
South Bruce                      676      1,047         –          25,911     2,334     29,968
Kincardine                       667       579          –          67,534     1,549     70,329
Saugeen Shores                   327         –         284         5,245       245       6,101
Northern Bruce Peninsula         542         –         82            –         479       1,103
First Nations Reserves           221         –          –            –          –         221
Total                           12,969    18,614      2,971       207,617     22,373    264,544
Watershed
SVCA                            6,197     16,176      1,225       172,589     12,040    208,227
GSCA                            6,386     1,237        211         33,737     8,948     50,519
MVCA                              56       541         227           –         521       1,345
GRCA                              69       660          –            48        126        903
NVCA                             260         –        1,308        1,243       738       3,549
Total                           12,969    18,614      2,971       207,617     22,373    264,544


        4.5   Water Budget Analysis
              4.5.1 The Hydrologic Cycle
The movement and recycling of water between the atmosphere, land surface and underground
is called the hydrologic cycle. Understanding the hydrologic cycle, and in turn the flux of water
moving into and out of a study area, is critical in properly managing water resources.

The hydrologic cycle consists of four main components; precipitation, evapotranspiration,
surface water resources, and groundwater resources as shown in Figure 4.4. Water on the
ground surface, in streams or in lakes can return to the atmosphere through evaporation. Water
used by plants can be returned to the atmosphere through transpiration. Collectively known as


4-12
                                                                        4. Groundwater Use Assessment



evapotranspiration, both evaporation and transpiration occur in greatest amounts during periods
of high temperatures, high wind, low humidity, and bright sunshine.




                                           RUNOFF                     PUMPING




                                RECHARGE




Figure 4.4:     The Hydrologic Cycle

When water infiltrates the ground, gravity pulls the water down until it reaches the water table.
This groundwater then moves very slowly through pore spaces towards surface water features
such as rivers, streams, lakes and oceans.
              4.5.2 Regional Water Budget Analysis
Establishing a water budget for a natural system is a complex problem because there are many
factors that influence the parameters involved, namely precipitation, runoff, recharge and
evapotranspiration. A generalized version of the water balance is as follows:

Eq. 1 GW(in) + SW(in) + Precipitation = SW(out) + GW(out) + ET + (Net storage)

Where GW and SW denote groundwater and surface water respectively, (in) and (out) represent
flow into and out of the Counties, ET is the evapotranspiration, and 'Net Storage’represents the
amount of infiltrated water that does not return to a receiving stream, and is held in storage in
the system. For instance, the positive totals for ‘ Net Storage’ during the winter months (e.g.
December to March) represent snow on the ground, whereas the negative values during the
summer months (e.g. July to August) denotes water pulled from soil-water storage. When long
term inflows and outflows are considered, the Net Storage term will approach zero.



                                                                                                 4-13
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



Groundwater availability is of primary interest in the Grey and Bruce Counties study. Climate
data, such as, precipitation and evapotranspiration data, was used to understand the inputs and
outputs of the water budget, such as groundwater recharge. The total amount of groundwater
takings, for domestic, industrial and other uses, was then compared to the amount of
groundwater recharge, to determine the net amount of groundwater available to the Counties.

Since recharge and discharge areas do not follow municipal boundaries, it is difficult to evaluate
a regional water budget over a portion of land that spans 5 different watersheds. The water
budget must be determined on a watershed basis before it can be evaluated on a regional
basis. To perform a water budget on a watershed basis, all components of the water budget
must be determined for each watershed. The regional water budget for Grey and Bruce
Counties represents a large-scale regional estimate, and further refinement is needed to
evaluate water budgets at a more local-scale. We recommend this refinement should be
directed at sub-watershed scales, so that stream flow data can be better utilized.

Precipitation, evapotranspiration and temperature data for the Grey and Bruce Counties study
were obtained from climate normals originating from point-based weather station data acquired
by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The information obtained is based on data acquired over
a 29-year period (1961- 1990), and is presented in Table 4.10. The data is regional in extent,
and similar information exists for all of Canada. At a regional-scale, the components of the
hydrological cycle provide reasonable estimates of the net available quantity of water. However,
small scale variations are anticipated (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1997).

TABLE 4.10:    CLIMATE DATA FOR GREY AND BRUCE COUNTIES (1961 TO 1990)
Precipitation1
Ecodistrict        Jan    Feb    Mar    Apr    May     Jun     Jul    Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec                Annual
  550              77.5   51.4   57.6   62.4   64.3    67.3   60.4    80.9 92.4 79.5 84.8 92.5            870.4
  551              97.6   68.2   63.9   61.8   70.3    77.5   76.2    92.3 96.9 85.2 94.3 107.1           990.5
  556              78.8   65.9   76.4   69.2   74.8    80.5   77.4    97.7 89.5 84.2 93.4 91.6            988.5
  557             105.3   74.3   70.2   71.8   76.0    78.4   77.1    93.7 101.4 90.8 100.1 113.6        1052.7
  558              91.7   68.7   68.0   69.1   78.9    82.4   76.4    99.4 99.2 88.6 97.6 103.6          1022.9

Evapotranspiration2
    Ecodistrict Jan       Feb Mar Apr          May     Jun     Jul     Aug    Sep    Oct    Nov   Dec    Annual
       550      0.1       0.0 1.9 53.7         81.6   101.4   114.7   92.7    60.3   30.3   9.9   0.0     546.7
       551      0.1       0.0 7.9 59.4         95.4   114.3   127.3   101.9   65.7   31.6   9.5   0.0     613.0
       556      0.0       0.0 1.6 54.7         92.3   111.4   121.7   95.0    60.9   26.0   6.1   0.0     569.8
       557      0.1       0.0 11.0 62.7        99.1   119.6   128.6   100.9   65.6   31.1   8.9   0.0     627.6
       558      0.1       0.0 6.5 59.8         96.8   116.3   127.6   99.5    64.8   29.7   8.6   0.0     609.5

Temperature3
    Ecodistrict   Jan     Feb    Mar    Apr    May    Jun      Jul    Aug     Sep    Oct    Nov   Dec    Annual
       550        -8.0    -7.9   -2.9   4.0     9.5   14.3    18.2    17.9    14.1   8.6    2.8   -4.1    5.5
       551        -7.4    -7.0   -2.1   5.2    11.4   16.4    19.6    18.8    14.8   8.7    2.7   -4.1    6.4
       556        -8.9    -8.3   -3.2   4.3    11.1   15.8    18.5    17.6    13.7   7.6    1.5   -5.4    5.4
       557        -6.9    -6.7   -1.5   5.7    12.0   17.0    19.6    18.7    14.9   8.9    3.0   -3.5    6.8
       558        -7.8    -7.4   -2.2   5.2    11.7   16.6    19.4    18.4    14.5   8.5    2.4   -4.4    6.2
1
  refers to average monthly precipitation (snow and rain) in mm
2
  refers to the average monthly evapotranspiration in mm
3
  refers to the average monthly temperature in degrees Celcius



4-14
                                                                          4. Groundwater Use Assessment




Based on the information in Table 4.10 and the percentage of Grey and Bruce Counties in each
Ecodistrict, the average annual precipitation for the Counties is calculated to be 980 mm. Grey
and Bruce Counties has an area of approximately 8,660 km2, and therefore, the annual volume
of precipitation that falls on the Counties is approximately 8,483 million m3 .

Similar calculations were performed for evapotranspiration in the Counties, resulting in a rate of
594 mm/year and an annual volume of 5,140 million m3.

Recharge rates were estimated to range from 75 mm/year to 150 mm/year across the Counties,
based on the calibration of the 22 MODFLOW models in Section 6. This estimate is consistent
with the low stream flow measurements presented in Section 2. The resulting annual recharge
volume ranges from 650 million m3 to 1,300 million m3 .

Runoff was calculated as the difference between precipitation and the other components of the
water budget. Based on the low recharge rate of 650 million m3, annual runoff volume was
calculated to be 1,957 million m3 /year.
              4.5.3 Water Budget Summary
Using all the information compiled through the groundwater use assessment, a simplified water
budget is presented. This water budget is to provide perspective to the amount of water entering
and leaving the Counties, compared to the amount of groundwater being used. Water budget
parameters for Grey and Bruce Counties on an annual basis are presented in Table 4.11.

TABLE 4.11:     WATER BUDGET SUMMARY
 Component                         Low          Average          High
                                 (106 m3)       (106 m3)       (106 m3)
 Precipitation                    8,483          8,483          8,483
 Evapotranspiration               5,140          5,140          5,140
 Recharge                          650            975           1,300
 Runoff                           2,639          2,368          2,042

A summary of the total daily and yearly groundwater taking for Grey and Bruce Counties is as
follows:

    Large-scale User Groundwater Taking:           75.8 million m3 /year (207,617 m3/day)
    Rural Groundwater Use:                          4.7 million m3/year ( 12,969 m3 /day)
    Municipal Groundwater Taking:                   6.8 million m3/year ( 18,614 m3 /day)
    Agricultural Groundwater Taking:                8.2 million m3/year ( 22,373 m3 /day)
    Water Supply (communal and campground)          1.1 million m3/year ( 2,971 m3 /day)
    Total Groundwater Taking:                      96.6 million m3 /year (264,544 m3/day)

From this analysis, we see that the combination of domestic (rural), municipal, communal and
agricultural groundwater use within the Counties is approximately 20.8 million m3/year, which is
2.1% of average available recharge. Large-scale groundwater use is approximately 75.8 million
m3 /year, which is 7.8% of average available recharge. This means that only a fraction of the
available recharge is being used for water supply within the Counties. However, actual water
taking by large-scale users is mostly unknown and may be much less than the permitted rate.




                                                                                                   4-15
4. Groundwater Use Assessment



       4.6    Summary of Groundwater Use
A regional groundwater use assessment was conducted using information on municipal,
communal, agricultural, private and industrial water taking. Data for the groundwater use
assessment was obtained from the MOE Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database, municipal
                                s
water supply reports (Engineer’ Reports), MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS), and
Certificates of Approval. A survey was also completed of large-scale users (PTTW rate of more
than 200,000 L/day), and municipal water works. The results of these surveys are presented in
Appendix B and C, respectively. Finally, population estimates, which were used to estimate
domestic water use, were obtained from Statistics Canada.

This information was used to complete a water budget analysis of the study area, to provide
information about the quantity of groundwater currently being utilized in Grey and Bruce
Counties. The results of the groundwater use assessment show that there are 422 permits in
the PTTW database and that these permits correspond to 553 water sources (wells, springs or
ponds). Of the 422 PTTW permits there are 254 PTTW using groundwater (168 are active
permits), of which 37 are “                  .
                            large-scale uses” Based on maximum permitted rate, groundwater
use by large-scale users is 207,617 m3/day in the Counties.

Based on estimates of the rural population of the study area, domestic groundwater use is
estimated to be 12,969 m3 /day in the Counties. Municipal groundwater use was estimated to be
18,614 m3/day in the Counties. Communal and campground groundwater use was estimated to
be 2,971 m3/day in the Counties. Finally, agricultural groundwater use was estimated to be
22,373 m3/day in the Counties.

Subsequently, a water budget analysis was completed using information on Canadian Climate
Normals (1961-1990) from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Recharge was estimated to
range from 75 mm/year to 150 mm/year across the Counties. This results in a total volume of
between 650 and 1,300 million m 3/year being recharged to the groundwater environment.

The combination of domestic (rural), municipal, communal and agricultural groundwater use
(20.8 million m3/year) is approximately 2.1% of available recharge. We also see that permitted
water taking by large-scale users (75.8 million m3/year) is approximately 7.8% of available
recharge. This means that only a fraction (9.9%) of the available recharge is being used for
water supply within the Counties. However, actual water taking by large-scale users is mostly
unknown and may be much less than the permitted rate. In spite of this, the actual water taking
by large-scale users could be up to 4 times as large as the water takings of all other
groundwater uses combined. As such, it is the one use of groundwater within the Counties that
may pose a risk to the quantity of water available for public water supply, as well as to maintain
baseflow in rivers.

In summary, on a regional-scale, there appears to be adequate groundwater available to meet
current and future needs. However, the analysis does not consider the effects that concentrated
water taking may have on the groundwater system or overall ecosystem health. Additional
analysis at a watershed or sub-watershed scale could provide additional information about safe
groundwater yield and impacts that future development activities may have.




4-16
                                                                        5. Contaminant Sources Inventory




5 Contaminant Sources Inventory
To complete a regional groundwater management study, it is important to understand the
hydrogeologic setting, as discussed in previous sections of the report, and to identify potential
sources of groundwater contamination. In this study, an inventory of the potential contaminant
sources was completed. The potential for contamination from the identified sources was
assessed with respect to possible impacts on groundwater supplies in the area. This section
provides a description of the potential contaminant sources inventory.
      5.1   Overview
There are many different types of potential threats to groundwater quality, which may include
organic chemicals, hydrocarbons (e.g. benzene in gasoline, TCE in solvents), inorganic cations
(e.g. iron, manganese) and anions (chloride, nitrate), pathogens (bacteria, viruses), and
radionuclides (radon, strontium) (Fetter, 1999). It is important to know the location of potential
contaminant sources, to help ensure the long-term sustainability of the groundwater resource.
This information can be used to identify areas where monitoring is required to safeguard
groundwater resources. The information is best stored and maintained in a database that
includes details about the potential contaminant source, its location (including address where
available), and information about the quality of the data and the accuracy of the reported
location. In the future, if a specific contaminant is identified in a domestic water well, the
database could be used to identify the possible source of the contaminants. Information about
the different potential contaminant sources throughout the Counties could be used in the
development of future groundwater resources.

Groundwater contamination may occur from either point sources or non-point sources of
contamination. These terms generally describe the localization of the contaminant. A point
source is typically a small-scale contaminant source area, such as a leaky underground fuel
storage tank, or a landfill. Non-point sources, in contrast, are larger in scale and are typically
more diffuse than point source contaminants. Non-point sources are primarily related to land
use practices (fertilizer spreading, road salting), whereas point sources may be related to
localized contamination events (contaminant spill). Both point and non-point contaminant
sources are capable of impacting large volumes of groundwater. For example, one litre of a
typical degreasing solvent such as trichloroethylene (TCE) can contaminate up to 29 million
litres of groundwater. This is equivalent to the water required to fill 30 Olympic-sized swimming
pools.

The objective of the potential contaminant inventory is to prepare an inventory of known and
potential sources of contaminants in Grey and Bruce Counties. This information was compiled
using existing databases and other information as discussed below.
      5.2   Methodology and Data Sources
Data for the potential contaminant sources inventory was obtained primarily from the Ministry of
the Environment (MOE). Included in this information from the MOE was a database of private
and retail underground fuel storage tanks from the Technical Standards and Safety Association
(TSSA), as well as information from the MOE on spill occurrences, PCB storage, landfills and
wastewater treatments plants in the Counties.

The quality of the information available to complete the contaminant sources inventory,
particularly the information in the previously compiled databases, is poor. As a result, many of
the potential contaminant sources have unreliable locations, and many were not mapped.



                                                                                                    5-1
5. Contaminant Sources Inventory




The accuracy of the information is acceptable from a regional standpoint, and has been
supplemented locally throughout much of the study area. In urban areas, within municipal
wellfield capture zones, the locations of potential contaminants were verified, where possible,
during the wellhead protection area (WHPA) contaminant sources assessment (see Section 7).
The field surveys were conducted to verify the presence of different land uses that could
adversely affect groundwater quality. During these surveys it was impossible to verify the
location of spills that occurred in the past.

To address uncertainties in the locations of potential contaminant sources, the project database
was updated to include a descriptor of the reliability of the contaminant location, ranging from
“known location” to “poor reliability”to “unknown location”.
       5.3     Contaminant Sources Inventory Results
Table 5.1 summarizes the results of the contaminant sources assessment. There are 1319
entries in the MOE Contaminant Sources Database for the study area. Of these, only 702 could
be identified as being within the study area, using UTM coordinates or township/county
information (leaving 617 records with an unknown location). Of the 702 records identified with
the study area, there were 237 that could be mapped (95 with UTM coordinates, 142 with
addresses).

TABLE 5.1:         POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
 Potential Source                             Number of Records
                                    Located        Not Located     Total
 Fuel Storage                          127            172           299
 PCB Storage                           22              5            27
 Contaminant Spill Sites               78             210           288
 Certificates of Approval              10              78           88
 Total                                 237            465           702

A discussion of the specific types of contaminant sources in the database is presented below.
               5.3.1 Fuel Storage Sites
Fuel storage tanks are large containers that store hundreds to thousands of litres of gasoline,
fuel oil, or diesel. These storage tanks are located either above or below ground. For instance,
gas stations commonly have many underground storage tanks that store diesel and gasoline.
Underground storage tanks are susceptible to corrosion, and to the settling of the ground above,
or around, the tanks. In the process of filling the tanks, there is also some risk of spillage. Holes,
cracks, or breaks in the tanks can cause varying amounts of contaminants to enter the ground
potentially over long periods of time. Identifying the locations of underground storage tanks, as
well as the location of sites where storage tanks previously existed, provides information that
can be used to assess potential groundwater contaminant sources.

The locations of underground storage tanks from the TSSA database are shown on Figure 5.1.
A total of 299 records of storage tanks contained in the TSSA database are located within the
study area. Of these records, 127 are reliably plotted on Figure 5.1. The remaining 172 records
contained incomplete or incorrect address information. Furthermore, it is likely that many other



5-2
                                                                          5. Contaminant Sources Inventory



private fuel storage tanks exist throughout the Counties that have not been included in the
database.
            5.3.2 PCB Storage Sites
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mixtures of up to 200 chlorinated compounds that were
widely used, in the 1960s and 1970s, as coolants and lubricants in the manufacture of electrical
transformers and capacitors. There are no known natural sources of PCBs, and their
manufacture was stopped in 1977 because of evidence they can cause harmful impacts to
human health and the environment. PCBs are quite resistant to chemical, thermal or biological
degradation, and as such they tend to persist in the environment. A total of 27 PCB sites were
identified in the study area, and 22 of those are plotted on Figure 5.1.
            5.3.3 Contaminant Spill Sites
Contaminant spills are of concern to rural and urban groundwater users because of their
potential impacts on municipal and domestic groundwater supplies. However, the degree to
which a spill impacts the environment is dependent on the area of the spill, the volume of
contaminant released, and the type of contaminant. Spills recorded in the MOE database range
from a few litres of dye spilled in a watercourse, to several hundreds of litres of heavy oil spilled
in a parking lot. There are 300 spills of varying severity recorded in the MOE database. Among
the spills, 12 were released to the air and were not considered, and 78 of the remaining 288
spills were located with good reliability, and plotted on Figure 5.1.
            5.3.4 Certificate of Approval Sites
Certificates of Approval (CofAs) are permits issued by the Ministry of the Environment that allow
the regulated discharge of contaminants into the natural environment. The contaminant sources
database from the MOE contained 88 records of CofAs, of which 10 were located with good
reliability. These 10 records correspond to landfill sites, sewage treatment plants, and potential
waste generation sites, and are plotted on Figure 5.1.
            5.3.5 Landfill Sites
To augment the information contained in the contaminant sources database, the open and
closed landfills in Grey and Bruce Counties were added to the database. The locations of these
landfill sites were obtained from the Waste Disposal Site Inventory (MOE, 1991) for Ontario, and
finalized through discussions with the Steering Committee. There are 37 active landfill sites and
88 closed landfill sites in the study area, which are plotted on Figure 5.1.
            5.3.6 Wastewater Treatment Plants
Municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Counties were also added to the contaminant
sources database. The locations of these wastewater treatment plants were obtained by
Gamsby and Mannerow, and confirmed using the Ontario Base Maps. There are 20 wastewater
treatment plants in the study area, which are plotted on Figure 5.1.
            5.3.7 Abandoned Boreholes
Ontario Water Resources Act, Regulation 903, Section 21 addresses well abandonment, and it
states that, “when a well is to be abandoned, it shall be plugged with concrete or other suitable
material so as to preclude the vertical movement of water or gas in the well between aquifers or
between an aquifer and the ground surface.” Abandoned or poorly constructed wells are a
threat to groundwater aquifers. Abandoned wells can provide a route for surface contaminants
to travel directly to a deep aquifer in a very short period of time.




                                                                                                      5-3
5. Contaminant Sources Inventory



Limited information about the locations of abandoned wells is currently available. The WWIS
includes a data field that denotes wells that were drilled, but not used. These are likely wells that
provided poor yield or poor quality water. Information regarding the decommissioning of these
wells is not included in the database, and it is impossible to assess whether they were properly
decommissioned. Since it is reasonable to assume that many of these wells were not properly
decommissioned, their locations are included in Figure 5.2 as small dots. In total, 526
abandoned borehole are plotted. The status of well abandonment for these wells should be
further evaluated, where possible, within areas that are deemed sensitive (high vulnerability
areas and within WHPAs).
       5.4     WHPA Contaminant Sources Assessment Results
To finalize the analysis of potential contaminant sources within the study area, WHPA
assessments were completed for each of the WHPA boundaries. Local-scale contaminant
source information was collected by Gamsby and Mannerow, which included ground-truthing of
potential contaminant sources within each WHPA boundary. For an agricultural perspective, Dr.
Bruce MacDonald completed a survey of agricultural land use in each WHPA boundary. To
confirm the results of the ground-truthing of potential contaminant sources within each WHPA,
both Grey and Bruce Counties propose to send a Contaminant Source Assessment Form
(Appendix D) to the address of each potential contaminant source identified.

Table 5.2 summarized the results of the WHPA assessment, which are incorporated into the
contaminant sources database. There were 339 potential contaminant sources identified within
the WHPA boundaries. These sources are categorized as industrial/manufacturing, automotive,
fuel storage, agricultural, landfills, hospital and other potential sources.

TABLE 5.2:         WHPA CONTAMINANT ASSESSMENT RESULTS
 Category                          Records   Land Use
 Industrial/manufacturing            13      Tool and die, aggregates, concrete, stone factory,
                                             aluminum, furniture, shoes, food co-ops, ice cream
 Automotive                          28      Repair shops, dealers, salvage yards, car wash
 Fuel storage                        14      Gas stations, airports
 Agricultural/livestock              134     Crops/nursery, livestock operations
 Landfill                             1      Town landfills
 Hospitals                            4      General hospitals
 Other                               145     Dry cleaners, beauty salons, photo finishing, construction
                                             yards, medical/veterinary offices, cemeteries, golf courses,
                                             schools, clubs, funeral homes, well houses, offices,
                                             aggregate pits
 Total                               339

Figure 5.3 shows the location of the potential contaminant sources that were mapped within the
study area. These records were mapped with a combination of UTM coordinates, Grey and
Bruce Counties lot/concession/township information, NRVIS roads information, and address
matching using Internet mapping software.

These potential contaminant sources will be presented, in Section 7, on local-scale mapping in
relation to the WHPA boundaries and intrinsic susceptibility areas. Understanding the locations
of land uses that pose a risk to groundwater quality, in relation to high susceptibility areas and
the WHPAs, provides a means to identify sensitive areas surrounding each municipal well.




5-4
                                                                      5. Contaminant Sources Inventory



      5.5   Summary of Potential Contaminant Sources
The objective of the potential contaminant sources inventory was to prepare an inventory of
known and potential sources of contaminants in Grey and Bruce Counties. There are 1309
records in the MOE Contaminant Sources Database. Of these records, there are 237 known
contaminant source records that could be mapped. In addition to the information contained in
the MOE database, other information sources were used to identify the landfills and wastewater
treatment plants within the study area, which added 154 potential sources to the database. A
local-scale contaminant sources assessment was completed in each WHPA boundary, which
added 339 potential sources to the MOE database. Abandoned boreholes are not potential
contaminant sources, but they do provide potential pathways for surface contamination to reach
lower hydrogeologic units. The WWIS was analyzed for abandoned boreholes, and there are
526 within the study area.

To augment this analysis, Figure 5.4 was created at a 1:200,000 scale to present all of the
potential contaminated site information at a more detailed larger scale.

As a result, the following potential contaminant sources were added to the database:

•   fuel storage (UST) locations;
•   automotive facilities;
•   industrial/manufacturing facilities;
•   PBC storage sites;
•   contaminant spill sites;
•   MOE Certificates of Approval;
•   open landfills;
•   closed landfills;
•   wastewater treatment plants;
•   hospitals;
•   agricultural land uses;
•   abandoned boreholes; and,
•   other potential contaminant sources.

As additional information is collected or becomes available, the information contained in the
database of potential contaminant sources should be updated. The information collected during
this part of the study can be used to help identify the sources contaminants detected in the
future, and can be used during the development of future water supplies.




                                                                                                  5-5
                                                                                   6. WHPA Modeling




6     Wellhead Protection Area Modeling
      6.1   Methodology
The most defensible method for delineating wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) is through the
application of numerical groundwater models. The physical relationships governing the
movement of groundwater can be incorporated into numerical models to simulate the existing
groundwater flow system. Numerical groundwater modeling also allows the integration of
heterogeneous field data, which is very difficult to consider otherwise. Groundwater modeling
should be considered an essential tool in all phases of groundwater investigations.

Once a calibrated model solution has been developed, groundwater velocities can be
calculated at any point within the model using the simulated heads, the calibrated hydraulic
conductivity, and porosity. These velocities define the pathline of imaginary "particles" of water
from any release-point within the model domain. The travel time between any two points along
the pathlines can also be calculated. Individual groundwater particles can be traced down the
hydraulic gradient ("forward" particle tracking) or up the hydraulic gradient ("reverse" particle
tracking). Time-related capture zones for pumping wells can be calculated by releasing many
“reverse” particles originating in a circle around the well. The capture zone results form the
basis for delineating WHPAs for the municipal well.

For the delineation of WHPAs, all models share the following numerical modeling approach.
Wellfield specific details are contained in Sections 6.2 through 6.13, respectively, for each of
the municipal groundwater systems that were modeled.
            6.1.1     Conceptual Model Development
A conceptual model was developed to characterize the geology and hydrogeology surrounding
each wellfield. This conceptual model was used as the basis for implementing the numerical
groundwater flow model. Existing hydrogeologic and engineering reports, in addition to the
principal data sources listed in Table 2.1, were used to develop and characterize the
hydrogeologic environment.

Two cross-sections were created for each wellfield. The selection of the wells included in these
cross-sections was based on the availability of data. The municipal production wells, and oil
and gas wells, were included in the cross-sections (where available). Cross-sections were
located through the wellfield, one parallel to the direction of groundwater flow, and one
perpendicular to the direction of groundwater flow. Hydrogeologic interpretations were
developed using previous interpretations and aquifer testing results (where available).

Using the regional-scale mapping and local cross-section analysis, overburden thickness and
bedrock surface topography was defined. Areas with potentially higher or lower recharge rates
were interpreted from cross-sections and other sources of information (i.e. previous studies
and geologic maps). Hydraulic conductivity zones were defined for each aquifer based on
cross-sections and other available information (i.e. aquifer test data). Water level maps, cross-
sections, and NRVIS base maps were used to delineate the hydrogeologic boundaries for each
numerical model.

Each numerical model was developed using a 3-layered hydrogeologic conceptual model,
which is defined as follows:

·   Layer 1 represents the overburden (Quaternary geology) above the bedrock;


                                                                                               6-1
6. WHPA Modeling



·     Layer 2 represents the weathered, or fractured, contact zone above the unweathered
      bedrock; and,
·     Layer 3 represents the unweathered bedrock.

Model parameters, including transmissivity, specific capacity, pumping rates, and hydraulic
conductivities, were all developed in consistent units, as follows:

·     Transmissivity in m2/day;
·     Porosity in m/m;
·     Specific Capacity in m2/day;
·     Pumping Rates in IGPM and m3/day; and,
·     Hydraulic Conductivity in m/s.
              6.1.2     Numerical Model Selection
For the Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study, Visual MODFLOW (Waterloo
Hydrogeologic, 2002) was used to develop MODFLOW (Harbaugh et al., 2000) models of all
the municipal groundwater systems. MODFLOW was selected because it simulates
groundwater flow, and with MODPATH (Pollock, 1994), it simulates advective particle tracking.
The resulting particle pathlines form the basis for defining the time-of-travel (TOT) WHPAs.
Furthermore, Visual MODFLOW provides an easy-to-use graphical user interface for data input
and output. The MODFLOW code, developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS),
is the most frequently applied groundwater modeling code in the world.
              6.1.3     Model Grid
MODFLOW is a finite-difference code with particle tracking (MODPATH) and water balance
(ZoneBudget) support programs. A complete description of the code can be found in the USGS
MODFLOW User's Manual (Harbaugh et al., 2000). The finite-difference approach involves
discretizing the model area into 'cells' by defining an array of rows, columns and layers. The
finite difference model calculates the hydraulic head in each cell so that the volume of water
entering each cell is equal to the volume of water exiting each cell.

An initial model grid of 200 m by 200 m cells was used to define each model domain. The
model grid was refined around the municipal pumping wells and river cells to a minimum cell
size of approximately 10 m by 10 m. Further refinement was implemented on a model-by-
model basis to achieve an acceptable model calibration, which is discussed in Section 6.1.6.
              6.1.4     Model Parameters
Geological information is represented in MODFLOW by 'zones', which correspond to areas
within the model domain that contain similar property values, for example, a confining till or an
outwash deposit. Physical information related to the conceptual geological model that is
incorporated into the model, includes:

·     spatially varied hydraulic conductivity;
·     spatially varied porosity;
·     spatially varied bottom elevation for each model layer; and,
·     spatially varied thickness for each model layer.

Table 6.1 presents a summary of the range of parameter values used to represent the
hydraulic conductivity and porosity for each of the model layers, which are based on the
parameter values used to calibrate the 22 MODFLOW models.


6-2
                                                                                6. WHPA Modeling



TABLE 6.1:   MODEL HYDROGEOLOGIC PARAMETER VALUES
Geological Unit         Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)         Effective Porosity (vol/vol)
                          Min        Ave         Max          Min       Ave         Max
Overburden Zones:
   Clay or Peat           1e-9       1e-7        1e-6         0.15        0.3         0.5
   Sand and Gravel        1e-5       1e-4        1e-3         0.25        0.3        0.35
   Silt Till              1e-8       1e-6        1e-5          0.2        0.3         0.5
   Kame Materials         1e-7       1e-5        1e-4          0.2        0.3        0.35
   Exposed Bedrock        1e-7       1e-5        1e-3         0.05        0.1        0.15
Bedrock Contact Zone:
 Weathered bedrock          1e-7       1e-5       1e-3        0.05        0.1        0.15
Competent Bedrock:
  Dolostone                 1e-8       1e-6       1e-5        0.05        0.1        0.15
  Shale                    1e-10       1e-8       1e-7        0.05        0.1        0.15

           6.1.5     Model Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions are incorporated in the model to control how the groundwater model
interacts with the environment outside of the model domain. Boundary conditions are used to
represent such features as streams, rivers and impermeable geologic contacts. MODFLOW is
capable of simulating the following boundary conditions:

·   spatially varied recharge and evapotranspiration;
·   infiltration, or exfiltration, from surface water bodies such as streams and rivers;
·   constant heads corresponding to the water elevation of lakes or reservoirs;
·   pumping wells; and,
·   no-flow boundaries corresponding to areas across which groundwater does not pass, for
    example, groundwater streamlines or impermeable geologic contacts.

In each WHPA model, boundary conditions were placed along divides in the groundwater flow
system. In the overburden, they were placed along watershed or river boundaries, and in the
bedrock they were placed along groundwater streamlines. No-flow boundaries were used
where the groundwater flow direction is parallel to the model boundaries and beyond the area
of influence of the pumping wells. River boundary conditions were applied throughout the
model domain for rivers having perennial (year-round) flow, using a georeferenced map of the
NRVIS rivers. The bedrock flow system, in Layer 3, was defined using constant head cells that
were derived from the bedrock water level contour map (Figure 2.21).

Hydrologic input to the model domain from precipitation was represented by net recharge to
Layer 1. A uniformly distributed recharge value of between 75 and 150 mm/yr was used to
model this hydraulic boundary condition for each model.
           6.1.6     Model Calibration
Calibrating a groundwater flow model allows it to be used to simulate groundwater flow that is
statistically representative of field conditions. Models can be calibrated to steady-state or
transient field-measured groundwater heads and flows. In this study, numerical models were
calibrated to a set of groundwater heads that represent steady-state groundwater flow
conditions.


                                                                                            6-3
6. WHPA Modeling




Prior to numerical model calibration, the range of uncertainty in the parameters representing
the conceptual hydrogeologic model was evaluated. Some parameters were known with a
higher degree of certainty, such as hydraulic conductivities in wellfields where aquifer testing
had previously been performed. Some parameters were known with less certainty, such as soil
porosity.

Model calibration was conducted using an iterative, trial-and-error, approach. This involved a
process where a flow simulation was carried out, the resulting groundwater heads were
compared to observed heads, and the model input parameters were re-adjusted to achieve
better agreement with observed (field-measured) conditions. This process was repeated until a
satisfactory agreement between simulated and observed heads was achieved, as defined by
the measures of calibration, which are discussed in Section 6.1.7.

The calibration data included static water level measurements, taken during the installation of
wells contained in the MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS). This dataset was
supplemented with local monitoring data where it was available. Since groundwater pumping is
a small component of the regional water balance of the study area, the static water levels from
the WWIS are considered representative of steady-state flow conditions. The water levels in all
observation wells were imported into the MODFLOW model from a text file containing data
associated with each well, such as easting, northing, average screen elevation and static water
level elevation (potentiometric head).
              6.1.7     Measures of Calibration
Model calibration results were evaluated using statistical measures that are based on the
calibration residuals. The statistical parameters used to evaluate the model calibration are
explained below, and include:

·     Calibration Residual (r) – is the difference between the calculated value of head and the
      observed value of head at any point in the modeled hydrogeologic system.
·     Mean Error (ME) – is the mean of all the residuals. This parameter can be misleading
      because the sum of a large negative residual and a large positive residual may be equal to
      zero. The Mean Error provides an indication of whether residuals are biased positively or
      negatively.
·     Mean Absolute Error (MAE) – is the mean of the absolute values of all the residuals. This
      parameter will be larger than the mean error and provides the average error associated
      with each calibration point in the model.
·     Root Mean Squared Error (RMS) – is the square root of the sum of the squares of all the
      residuals. Squaring the residuals increases the weighting that a poor residual will have on
      the overall calibration statistic. A low RMS is the best measure of a good model calibration.
·     Scaled Root Mean Squared Error (Scaled RMS) – is the RMS error divided by the
      difference between the highest observed head and the lowest observed head within the
      model domain.

The final calibration graph of observed versus calibrated heads is presented in Appendix E for
each WHPA model and the results are discussed.
              6.1.8     Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
A Wellhead Protection Area, or WHPA, is the two-dimensional projection onto the ground
surface of the three-dimensional volume of groundwater that is pumped from a wellfield. WHPA
boundaries usually receive TOT designations such as 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year.


6-4
                                                                                   6. WHPA Modeling



These travel times reflect the time required for water to move to the well from different areas of
the aquifer.

However, the capture zones are projected to ground surface, and in many instances the time-
of-travel WHPA does not reflect the time required for water to travel from ground surface to the
aquifer. This is particularly true when the wells that are being evaluated pump water from a
deep aquifer that is overlain with fine-grained sediments (silts and clays).

During the WHPA delineation process, municipal pumping rates were adjusted to reflect future
pumping conditions within each municipality to account for increased demand from population
growth. These rates, for the 2-year, 10-year and 25-year WHPAs, were selected through
consultation with personnel in each municipality. Rates were also adjusted for delineating the
50-day capture zone to account for larger than annual pumping rates, over the 50-day period.

The delineation of WHPAs in this study was performed with the following two objectives:

·   to delineate 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and steady-state TOT WHPAs using models
    which contain 'best estimate' values of hydrogeologic parameters; and,
·   to delineate the area of uncertainty associated with each WHPA.

Uncertainty was evaluated by conducting additional simulations for each WHPA. The National
Rivers Authority in the United Kingdom (NRA, 1995) has listed the following principal factors
that lead to WHPA uncertainty:

·   Uncertainty in point measurements of model parameters such as estimates of hydraulic
    conductivity at specific locations with pumping or slug tests;
·   Uncertainty in the accuracy of such point measurements when applied to larger areas;
·   Uncertainty in the relative distribution of model parameters;
·   Errors due to deficiencies in conceptual models; and,
·   Limitations of the model chosen to represent an aquifer system.

Uncertainties in WHPA mapping are an integral component of the WHPA solution.
            6.1.9     WHPA Uncertainty Analysis Method
When making predictions with a groundwater model, different combinations of parameters may
result in considerable variations in WHPAs for the same pumping wells. For example, WHPAs
simulated under conditions of high recharge rates, high hydraulic conductivities, and low
porosity may be much larger than WHPAs simulated under conditions of lower recharge rates
and lower hydraulic conductivity, and higher porosity values. However, hydrogeologic
parameters for both sets of conditions may result in an adequately calibrated numerical model,
and may be within the plausible range of uncertainty associated with the input parameters.

This technique for the WHPA uncertainty analysis is based on a procedure that produces
different, but equally likely, predictions of WHPAs consistent with the following:

·   Simulated heads at calibration target locations are within target head ranges. In this study,
    this was evaluated using the Root Mean Squared Error of each uncertainty simulation;
·   Model parameters are within physically realistic ranges; and,
·   Model boundary conditions such as recharge and river discharge are within physically
    realistic ranges.


                                                                                               6-5
6. WHPA Modeling




Two uncertainty simulations were performed with a range of parameter values defined in
conditions 1 and 2 above. Hydraulic conductivity, recharge, and porosity values were varied
through these simulations. The WHPAs defined for each of these simulations were digitally
overlain to derive envelopes defining the best estimate WHPA and the uncertainty area.

The best estimate WHPA is defined using the model simulation with the most likely
combination of parameters. This combination of parameters reflects the model calibration. The
WHPA uncertainty area is the area that may be within the capture zone, but is not within the
best estimate WHPA. The uncertainty area is mapped using the results from the uncertainty
analysis scenarios.
             6.1.10     Limitations of WHPA Modeling Results
The capture zones predicted using the numerical models are based on a number of
assumptions, input parameters, and boundary conditions that are incorporated into each
model. Each model is a representation of our understanding of the area surrounding the
municipal wells, and in all cases our representation has been simplified to facilitate model
development within the time and data constraints. The WHPA modeling results represent our
best estimate of the actual WHPAs, and provide excellent guidance regarding the specific
water source for each well.

As additional information becomes available, the numerical models can be revised and the
WHPAs can be re-evaluated. Furthermore, water taking will be different in the future, as
communities grow and additional groundwater wells are developed. Each of these factors will
affect the shape and size of the different capture zones (and WHPAs).

Further discussion for each municipal system and the developed WHPA models is provided in
the following sections.
             6.1.11     Overview of Model Areas
Figure 6.1 presents the domains of the 22 models developed to determine the WHPA
boundaries for 45 municipal groundwater systems in Grey and Bruce Counties. The original
Terms of Reference indicated that WHPA modeling was to be completed on 48 municipal well
systems. However, the Town of Saugeen Shores recently completed a pipeline to connect the
Miramichi Estates and Miramichi Shores developments to the existing surface water supply
system, and decommission the municipal wells. The Town of Walkerton has taken the Geeson
Avenue well out of service. Markdale decommissioned one municipal well, and added 2 new
municipal wells to the groundwater supply system. Thus, there are 12 municipalities in Grey
and Bruce Counties, for which WHPA models were developed as follows:

·     Grey County has 14 municipal systems, including 29 wells and 2 springs; and,
·     Bruce County has 31 municipal systems, including 44 wells.

The 45 municipal groundwater supply systems were represented with 22 model areas, by
combining the municipal systems that are within close proximity. The model areas are listed in
Table 6.2, and specific design information for the municipal wells is presented in Appendix F.




6-6
                                                                                     6. WHPA Modeling



TABLE 6.2:        WHPA MODELS BY MUNICIPALITY AND MUNICIPAL WELL SYSTEM
                                     WHPA Model           Municipal Groundwater
County           Municipality                                                          Wells
                                        Name                       System
     Grey                            Shallow Lake               Shallow Lake            2
                                                               Forest Heights           2
                Georgian Bluffs
                                      Owen Sound           Maplecrest Subdivision       2
                                                             Pottawatomi Village        2
                                      Chatsworth                 Chatsworth             3
                  Chatsworth
                                      Walter’s Falls            Walter’s Falls          2
                                       Neustadt                    Neustadt             3
                  West Grey
                                       Durham                      Durham               2
                  Southgate            Dundalk                     Dundalk              3
                                                                   Hanover              2
                   Hanover              Hanover
                                                          Lake Rosalind (Bruce C.)      1
                                     Markdale Model                Markdale             3
                Grey Highlands      Feversham Model            Beaver Heights           2
                                                                                          1.
                                    Kimberley Model       Kimberley-Amik-Talisman       2
 Bruce                                    Tara                       Tara               2
                Arran-Elderslie
                                        Chesley                    Chesley              2
                                                                 Fiddlehead             1
                                                            Cammidge & Collins          1
                                                                    Robins              1
                                                                     Fedy               1
                                                                    Forbes              1
                 South Bruce
                                     Sauble Beach                   Trask               1
                  Peninsula
                                                                Huron Woods             4
                                                                   Foreman              1
                                                                   Thomson              1
                                                                   Winburk              1
                                                                    Gremik              1
                   Brockton            Chepstow                   Chepstow              1
                                        Ripley                      Ripley              2
                                                                 Point Clark            2
                                                                 Blairs Grove           2
                                      Huron West
                Huron-Kinloss                                   Murdock Glen            2
                                                                  Huronville            2
                                                                   Lucknow              2
                                        Lucknow
                                                                Whitechurch             1
                                        Mildmay                    Mildmay              2
                 South Bruce
                                       Teeswater                  Teeswater             1
                                                                   Tiverton             2
                                                                   Kinhuron             1
                                    Kincardine South            Craig-Eskrick           1
                  Kincardine                               Lake Huron Highlands         2
                                                              Port Head Estates         1
                                                                 Underwood              1
                                    Kincardine North
                                                                  Scott Point           1
      2                12                  22                         45                  75
1.
     springs at Kimberley




                                                                                                 6-7
6. WHPA Modeling



      6.2    Township of Georgian Bluffs
The Township of Georgian Bluffs is located in the County of Grey. Figure 6.2 shows the model
domains and eight (8) municipal wells corresponding to the Shallow Lake and Owen Sound
WHPA models.
             6.2.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario1
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Township of Georgian Bluffs
are the Guelph Formation (dolostone), the Amabel Formation (dolostone), the Fossil Hill
Formation (dolostone), the Cabot Head Formation (mainly shale) and the Queenston
Formation (shale).

In the area of the Shallow Lake model, only the Guelph and Amabel Formations are
encountered at the bedrock surface, whereas in the Owen Sound model area, the Guelph,
Amabel, Fossil Hill, Cabot Head and Queenston Formations are all encountered at the bedrock
surface, in order from southwest to northeast over the Niagara Escarpment.

Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute2, the
Shallow Lake municipal wells penetrate the Guelph, Amabel and Fossil Hill Formations. In the
Owen Sound model area, the municipal wells penetrate the Amabel, Fossil Hill, Cabot Head
and Queenston Formations, listed in order as encountered with depth. These bedrock units
were represented as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Township of Georgian Bluffs mainly consists of
a drumlinized till and dolostone plain and the Niagara Escarpment3. The main physiographic
regions in the Township are the Bruce Peninsula, the Arran Drumlin Field and the Niagara
Escarpment.

The Bruce Peninsula region covers most of the township and consists of a dolostone plain with
thin overburden and a few drumlins. According to the Quaternary geology4 for the study area,
the dolostone plain consists of dolostone of the Guelph, Amabel and Fossil Hill Formations.
The thin overburden and drumlins on the plain consist of Bruce Till, a stony sandy silt till.

The Arran Drumlin Field region occurs in the southwest corner of the township, and consists of
a drumlinized till plain with till moraines and clay plains. According to the Quaternary geology,
the till plain and drumlins consist of the Elma-Catfish Creek Till, a stony, sandy silt till. The till
moraines, called the Tara Strands, consist of the Bruce Till, a stony sandy silt till, which is likely
the Elma-Catfish Creek Till.

On the east side of the township, below the Niagara Escarpment, is a shale plain with little
overburden, as well as beach deposits along the Georgian Bay shoreline. According to the
1
  Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development and
Mines, 1991.
2
  Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, Digital Well Database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
3
  Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
4
  Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary Geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-8
                                                                                                 6. WHPA Modeling



Quaternary geology, the shale plain is part of the Queenston Formation, and is partially
covered by a stony till with a sandy silt matrix, likely related to the Bruce Till or Elma Till. In the
south, between the Niagara Escarpment and the Owen Sound Harbour, there is a sand plain of
glaciolacustrine and nearshore sand and silt. Along the Georgian Bay shoreline, the beaches
and shorecliffs consist of glaciolucustrine and beach deposits of sand and gravel.

The Owen Sound model area is located in all three regions, the Arran Drumlin Field in the
southern upland area, the Bruce Peninsula in the intermediate area, and the Niagara
Escarpment region in the northern shoreline area. The Shallow Lake model area is located
mainly in the Bruce Peninsula region, except for a glaciolacustrine sand plain of the Huron
Fringe in the southwestern area of the model. There is also a small area of the Arran Drumlin
Field in the southern part of the Shallow Lake model.

The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the
WHPA modeling, as presented in Section 6.2.3.

Overburden Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, only 15% of the wells in the county obtain water from overburden. In
the Bruce Peninsula, there are no significant overburden aquifers because the overburden is
generally thin (less than ten metres thick) and consists of poorly-sorted tills, with well yields of
less than 0.2 L/s. In the southern part of the municipality, some overburden aquifers are found
in the moraines of the Tara Strands, in the Arran Drumlin Field.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, most groundwater supplies come from bedrock aquifers, with well
yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s common to the limestone and dolostone aquifers of the Guelph, Amabel
and Fossil Hill formations, encountered in the Bruce Peninsula. The Guelph Formation, a fine
crystalline dolostone, has low to moderate permeability, with well yields of 0.2 to 0.8 L/s. The
shales of the Cabot Head, Manitoulin and Queenston formations have low permeabilities, with
well yields of 0.2 to 0.8 L/s, and less than 0.2 L/s in the northern part of the county.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.3A to 6.3C. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.2.2       Municipal Well Systems
Owen Sound Water Systems
Due to their proximity, the Forest Heights Water System, the Maplecrest Water System and the
Pottawatomi Village Water System were combined into one model, called the Owen Sound
Model. The Forest Heights Water System is located south of the City of Owen Sound in the
Township of Georgian Bluffs, and is comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #1 and Well #2, both
constructed in 1985. The water supply system services a 19-lot residential subdivision of
approximately 57 people6. The Maplecrest Water System is also located south of the City of
Owen Sound in the Township of Georgian Bluffs, and is also comprised of two bedrock wells,
5
  Ground-Water Probability of the County of Grey, Southern Ontario, Map 3111, Scale 1:100,000, Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, 1980.
6
  Engineer’s Report for the Township of Georgian Bluffs: Forest Heights Water System, Gamsby & Mannerow
Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, January 2001.


                                                                                                              6-9
6. WHPA Modeling



Well #1 constructed in 1972 and Well #2 constructed in 1990. The water supply system
services nine single residences and three four-plex apartments (approximately 53 people7).
The Pottawatomi Village Water System is located west of the City of Owen Sound in the
Township of Georgian Bluffs, and is comprised of two bedrock wells. Well #1, a standby well,
and Well #2, both constructed in 1987, supply water to a 23-lot residential subdivision
(approximately 58 people). Figure 6.2 shows the location of the Forest Heights wells, the
Maplecrest wells and the Pottawatomi Village wells, their relationship to one another, and their
proximity to local rivers and roads, and to township and model boundaries.

Shallow Lake Water System
The Shallow Lake Water System is located in the former Village of Shallow Lake in the
Township of Georgian Bluffs, is represented in the Shallow Lake model. This system is
comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #2, constructed in 1996, and Well #3, constructed in
1999. The water supply system services a population of 487 people8. Figure 6.2 shows the
location of the Shallow Lake wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity
to local rivers and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.2.3       Model Design (Shallow Lake, Owen Sound)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Owen Sound model consists of 246 columns and 228 rows, with model
extents of 13 km by 16 km horizontally and 290 m vertically. In the Shallow Lake model, the
grid consists of 89 columns and 85 rows, with model extents of 9.5 km by 7.5 km horizontally
and 100 m vertically. Figure 6.2 presents the locations of the WHPA model domains with
respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Owen Sound Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from the
southwest towards the northeast, where it discharges into the Owen Sound Harbour, as can be
seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are constant head
boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 280 m amsl, and
downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 177 m amsl, the level of Georgian
Bay. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 115 mm/yr,
which falls within the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Shallow Lake Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from the
northeast and southeast towards the west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock
equipotential contours. There are constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system,
having a maximum head of 235 m amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a
minimum head of 194 m amsl. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model
calibration was 85 mm/yr, which falls within the range of values typical for this region.



7
  Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, design population estimates, 2001).
8
  Engineer’s Report for the Township of Georgian Bluffs: Shallow Lake Water System, Gamsby & Mannerow
Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, July 2001.


6-10
                                                                                  6. WHPA Modeling



Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.3 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.3:     CALIBRATED VALUES OF HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (GEORGIAN BLUFFS)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                           1e-7 to 5e-7
     Sand and Gravel                        3e-5 to 1e-4
     Silt Till                              1e-6 to 7e-6
     Kame Materials                         5e-7 to 2e-5
     Exposed Bedrock                        7e-6 to 5e-5
 Bedrock Contact Zone:                       7e-6 to 5e-5
 Competent Bedrock Zones:                    5e-6 to 6e-6

            6.2.4     Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Shallow Lake model, the water levels of 253 observation wells within the model domain
were used for calibration. In the Owen Sound model, the water levels of 472 observation wells
within the model domain were used for calibration. The resulting calibration graphs for the
Shallow Lake and Owen Sound models are presented in Appendix E, having values of
normalized root mean squared (NRMS) of 9.2 % and 8.2 %, respectively. These NRMS values
are less than 10%, therefore indicating that these MODFLOW models generally represent the
groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the Shallow Lake and Owen Sound municipal
water supply systems.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.2 shows the steady-state capture zones for each municipal well. The 50-day, 2-year,
10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones, developed for each municipal well, are
presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional analysis using the WHPAs, potential
contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results are also presented in Chapter 7.




                                                                                             6-11
6. WHPA Modeling



       6.3   Township of Chatsworth
The Township of Chatsworth is located in the County of Grey. Figure 6.4A shows the model
domain and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to the Chatsworth WHPA model. Figure
6.4B shows the model domain and two (2) municipal wells corresponding to the Walter’s Falls
WHPA model.
             6.3.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario9
(1991), the surficial bedrock formation encountered within the Township of Chatsworth is
mainly the Guelph Formation (dolostone). In the northeastern area of the township, near the
Niagara Escarpment, the Amabel Formation (dolostone), the Fossil Hill Formation (dolostone)
and the Cabot Head Formation (mainly shale) are also encountered at the bedrock surface.

In the area of the Chatsworth model, the uppermost bedrock formations are the Guelph
Formation and the Amabel Formation. In the Walter’s Falls model area, the uppermost
formations are the Amabel, Fossil Hill and Cabot Head Formations, as well as the Queenston
Formation (shale) on the Niagara Escarpment, beyond the township boundary.

Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute10, the
Chatsworth municipal wells penetrate the Guelph, Amabel and Fossil Hill Formations, and the
Walter’s Falls municipal wells penetrate the Amabel, Fossil Hill, Cabot Head and Queenston
Formations, listed in order as encountered with depth. These bedrock units were represented
as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Township of Chatsworth mainly consists of a
drumlinized till plain with two till moraines crossing through from west to east11. The main
physiographic regions in the township are the Horseshoe Moraines and the Arran Drumlin
Field.

The Horseshoe Moraines region consists of a drumlinized till plain, two till moraines, and
spillways to the south of the till moraines, kame moraines to the west and south, and a till
moraine to the north. According to the Quaternary geology defined by the MNR12, the till plain
and drumlins consist of a stony-bouldery till with a sandy silt matrix, which is likely the Elma Till,
a stony, sandy silt to silt till. The two till moraines consist of the same till as the till plain, where
the northern till moraine, called the Gibraltar Moraine, crosses through the centre of the
township and the southern till moraine, called the Singhampton Moraine, crosses through the
southern part of the township. The Gibraltar Moraine is flanked on its southern side by a
spillway that follows the course of the North Saugeen River, and the Singhampton Moraine is
flanked on its southern side by a spillway that follows the course of the Saugeen River.


9
  Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development and
Mines, 1991.
10
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
11
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
12
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-12
                                                                                               6. WHPA Modeling



The Arran Drumlin Field region occurs in the northwest corner of the township, and consists of
a drumlinized till plain with two small till moraines and discontinuous clay plains. According to
the Quaternary geology, the till plain and drumlins consist of Elma-Catfish Creek Till, a stony,
sandy silt till. The till moraines, called the Banks Moraines, consist of ice-contact stratified drift
of sand, gravel and some silt, and the clay plains consist of glaciolacustrine clay and silt.

In the northeast corner of the township, the township borders on the Niagara Escarpment,
beyond which is the Bighead River Valley. The Bighead River Valley appears to be a
continuation of the drumlinized till plain in the Horseshoe Moraines region. Also along the
Niagara Escarpment there are dolostone outcrops of the Amabel, Fossil Hill and Manitoulin
Formations.

The Chatsworth model area is located in the Horseshoe Moraines region. The Walter’s Falls
model area is located on the boundary between the Horseshoe Moraines region and the
Bighead River Valley, along the Niagara Escarpment. The MNR Quaternary geology was used
to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, only 15% of the wells in the county obtain water from overburden. In
the north of Grey County and along the Niagara Escarpment, the overburden is generally thin
and consists of poorly-sorted tills, with well yields of less than 0.2 L/s. Till deposits cover most
of the county, which have low permeabilities and cannot readily transmit water.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey13, most groundwater supplies come from bedrock aquifers, with well
yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. The limestone and dolostone aquifers of the Guelph, Amabel and Fossil
Hill formations are encountered in the Chatsworth model area and commonly have well yields
of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s. In addition to these aquifers, the shales of the Cabot Head and Queenston
formations are also encountered in the Walter’s Falls model area and generally yield less than
0.2 L/s.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.5A and 6.5B. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
             6.3.2        Municipal Well Systems
Chatsworth Water System
The Chatsworth Water Works, located in the former Village of Chatsworth in the Township of
Chatsworth, is represented in the Chatsworth model. This municipal system is comprised of
three bedrock wells, Well #1 and Well #2, both constructed in 1983, and Well #3 constructed in
1978. Wells #1 and #2 are used interchangeably, reserving one as a standby, and Well #3 is
only for emergency supply. The water supply system services a population of approximately
540 people14. Figure 6.5 shows the location of the Chatsworth wells and their proximity to one

13
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Grey, Southern Ontario, Map 3111, Scale 1:100,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1980.
14
   Engineer’s Report for the Township of Chatsworth: Chatsworth Water Works, Henderson, Paddon & Associates
Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, January 2001.


                                                                                                           6-13
6. WHPA Modeling



another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to township and model
boundaries.

Walter’s Falls Water System
The Walter’s Falls Water Works, located in the former Hamlet of Walter’s Falls in the Township
of Chatsworth, is represented in the Walter’s Falls model. This municipal system is comprised
of two bedrock wells, Well #1 and Well #2, both constructed in 1989. The water supply system
services 44 residences and businesses and has a 20-year design population15 of 227. Figure
6.5 shows the location of the Walter’s Falls wells and their proximity to one another, as well as
their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.3.3       Model Design (Chatsworth, Walter’s Falls)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Chatsworth model consists of 146 columns and 141 rows, with model
extents of 13 km by 14 km horizontally and 130 m vertically. In the Walter’s Falls model, the
grid consists of 164 columns and 167 rows, with model extents of 15 km by 12 km horizontally
and 350 m vertically. Figure 6.5 presents the locations of the WHPA model domains with
respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Chatsworth Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to
west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 325 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 270 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Walter’s Falls Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from
southeast to northwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours.
There are constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of
435 m amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 240 m amsl. The
final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 120 mm/yr, which falls
within the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.4 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).
             6.3.4       Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Chatsworth model, the water levels of 246 observation wells within the model domain
were used for model calibration. In the Walter’s Falls model, the water levels of 80 observation

15
  Engineer’s Report for the Township of Chatsworth: Walter’s Falls Water Works, Henderson, Paddon & Associates
Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, January 2001.


6-14
                                                                                 6. WHPA Modeling



wells within the model domain were used for model calibration. The resulting calibration graphs
for the Chatsworth and Walter’s Falls models are presented in Appendix E, having NRMS
values of 10.4 % and 6.8 %, respectively. These NRMS values are less than or equal to 10%,
therefore indicating that these MODFLOW models generally represent the groundwater flow
conditions in the vicinity of the Chatsworth and Walter’s Falls municipal water supply systems.

TABLE 6.4:     CALIBRATED VALUES OF HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (CHATSWORTH)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                           5e-8 to 9e-8
     Sand and Gravel                             1e-4
     Silt Till                              3e-7 to 1e-6
     Kame Materials                         1e-6 to 3e-6
     Exposed Bedrock                             1e-6
 Bedrock Contact Zone:                     1.4e-6 to 1e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones:                 1.4e-6 to 4.5e-6

WHPA Results
Figure 6.4A and 6.4B show the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The
municipal well production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the
capture zone delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model
calibration correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well,
plus the 20-year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture
zones, developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7.
Additional analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility
results are also presented in Chapter 7.




                                                                                            6-15
6. WHPA Modeling



       6.4   Municipality of West Grey
The Municipality of West Grey is located in the County of Grey. Figure 6.6A shows the model
domain and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to the Neustadt WHPA model. Figure 6.6B
shows the model domain and two (2) municipal wells corresponding to the Durham WHPA
model.
             6.4.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario16
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Municipality of West Grey are
the Salina Formation (dolostone and shale) and the Guelph Formation (dolostone). In the area
of the Neustadt model, the uppermost formation is the Salina Formation, and in the Durham
model area, the uppermost formation is the Guelph Formation.

Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute17, the
Neustadt municipal wells only penetrate the Salina Formation, whereas the Durham municipal
wells penetrate the Guelph Formation, the Amabel Formation (dolostone) and the Fossil Hill
Formation (dolostone), listed in order as encountered with depth. These bedrock units were
represented as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary geology in the Municipality of West Grey mainly consists of a drumlinized till
plain traversed by glacial meltwater spillways and kame moraines18. The main physiographic
regions in the township are the Horseshoe Moraines and the Teeswater Drumlin Field.

The Horseshoe Moraines region covers most of the municipality and consists of a drumlinized
till plain covered by spillways, kame moraines to the west and south, and a till moraine to the
north. According to the Quaternary geology19, the till plain and drumlins consist of Elma Till, a
stony, sandy silt to silt till. The till moraine is part of the Singhampton Moraine and also consists
of Elma Till. The spillways consist of terraces of glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel, which
follow the path of the Saugeen River and its tributaries. The kame moraines, called the
Saugeen Kames, consist of ice-contact stratified drift of undifferentiated sand, gravel and silt.

The Teeswater Drumlin Field region occurs in the southwest part of the municipality and
consists of a drumlinized till plain, spillways of sand and gravel terraces, and kame moraines.
According to the Quaternary geology, the till plain and drumlins consist of mainly Elma Till, a
stony, sandy silt to silt till. The spillways generally follow the courses of the Beatty Saugeen
and South Saugeen Rivers and their tributaries, and consist of glaciolacustrine fine sand. The
kame moraines are sandhills that occur to the southwest and southeast of Neustadt, and are
part of the Saugeen Kames. According to the Quaternary geology, these kame moraines
mainly consist of ice-contact stratified drift of undifferentiated sand, gravel and silt.


16
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
17
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
18
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
19
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-16
                                                                                                6. WHPA Modeling



The Durham model area is located within the Horseshoe Moraines region and the Neustadt
model area is located within the Teeswater Drumlin Field.

The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the
WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, only 15% of the wells in the county obtain water from overburden. In
the southern part of the county, the significant overburden aquifers consist of sands and
gravels of beach, outwash, lacustrine, ice-contact and glaciofluvial deposits, having variable
well yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. Such aquifers occur in ice-contact stratified drift deposits, such as
the Saugeen Kames, and outwash deposits, such as spillways, which occur over and between
the morainal ridges. Till deposits, which have low permeabilities and cannot readily transmit
water, cover most of the county and often occur beneath other glacial deposits, such as
spillways, sand plains and peat and muck deposits.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey20, most groundwater supplies come from bedrock aquifers, with well
yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. The limestone and dolostone aquifers of the Salina, Guelph, Amabel
and Fossil Hill formations, encountered in the township, commonly have well yields of 0.8 to
3.8 L/s. Well yields greater than 3.8 L/s have been reported for wells in highly fractured
dolostone in the vicinity of Durham.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.7A and 6.7B. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.4.2       Municipal Well Systems
Durham Water System
The Durham Municipal Water Works, located in the Municipality of West Grey, is represented
in the Durham model. This municipal system is comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #1B
constructed in 1987 and Well #2 in 1966, which services the residents of the former Town of
Durham, having a population of approximately 2,647 people21. Figure 6.6 shows the location of
the Durham wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers
and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Neustadt Water System
The Neustadt Groundwater Supply System, located in the former Village of Neustadt in the
Municipality of West Grey, is represented in the Neustadt model. This municipal system is
comprised of three bedrock wells, Well #1 constructed in 1990, Well #2 in 1992 and Well #3 in
1993, which service approximately 537 people22 in Neustadt. Figure 6.6 shows the location of

20
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Grey, Southern Ontario, Map 3111, Scale 1:100,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1980.
21
   Population data from 2001 Community Profiles, Statistics Canada,
22
   First Engineer’s Report for the Township of West Grey: Neustadt Groundwater Supply System, Kitchener, Ontario,
May 2001.




                                                                                                            6-17
6. WHPA Modeling



the Neustadt wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers
and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.4.3    Model Design (Neustadt, Durham)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Neustadt model consists of 119 columns and 128 rows, with model
extents of 14 km by 16 km horizontally and 240 m vertically. In the Durham model, the grid
consists of 137 columns and 162 rows, with model extents of 16 km by 17 km horizontally and
335 m vertically. Figure 6.6 presents the locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to
the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Neustadt Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from south to
north, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 360 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 266 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Durham Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to
west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 440 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 315 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.5 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.5:     CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (WEST GREY)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                                4e-7
     Sand and Gravel                         4e-4 to 8e-4
     Silt Till                               4e-6 to 6e-6
     Kame Materials                          4e-7 to 5e-6
     Exposed Bedrock                              --
 Bedrock Contact Zone                        8e-5 to 8e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                     3e-5 to 6e-5




6-18
                                                                                 6. WHPA Modeling



           6.4.4      Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Neustadt model, the water levels of 108 observation wells within the model domain were
used for model calibration. In the Durham model, the water levels of 213 observation wells
within the model domain were used for model calibration. The resulting calibration graphs for
the Neustadt and Durham models are presented in Appendix E, having NRMS values of 7.3 %
and 5.5 %, respectively. These NRMS values are less than or equal to 10%, therefore
indicating that these MODFLOW models generally represent the groundwater flow conditions in
the vicinity of the Neustadt and Durham municipal water supply systems.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.6A and 6.6B show the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The
municipal well production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the
capture zone delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model
calibration correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well,
plus the 20-year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture
zones, developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7.
Additional analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility
results are also presented in Chapter 7.




                                                                                            6-19
6. WHPA Modeling



       6.5   Township of Southgate
The Township of Southgate is located in the County of Grey. Figure 6.8 shows the model
domain and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to the Dundalk WHPA model.
             6.5.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario23
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Township of Southgate are the
Salina Formation (dolostone and shale) and the Guelph Formation (dolostone). In the area of
the Dundalk model, the uppermost formation is the Guelph Formation. Based on the WWIS
and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute24, the Dundalk municipal
wells penetrate the Guelph Formation, the Amabel Formation (dolostone) and the Fossil Hill
Formation (dolostone), listed in order as encountered with depth. These bedrock units were
represented as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Township of Southgate mainly consists of a
drumlinized till plain with spillways and kames in the northwest25. The main physiographic
regions in the township are the Dundalk Till Plain and the Horseshoe Moraines.

The Dundalk Till Plain covers most of the township and consists of a poorly-drained
drumlinized till plain, with spillways along the Saugeen River in the north and along the South
Saugeen River in the southwest. According to the Quaternary geology26, the till plain and
drumlins consist of Elma Till, a stony, sandy silt to silt till. The spillways consist of glaciofluvial
outwash sand and gravel, and glaciolacustrine fine sand. There are also two long eskers that
cross through the township from northwest to southeast, which consist of ice-contact stratified
sand and gravel.

The Horseshoe Moraines region, in the northwest corner of the township, mainly consists of
spillways and kame moraines. According to the Quaternary geology, the spillways consist of
glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel, which generally follow the paths of tributaries to the
Saugeen River. The kame moraines, called the Saugeen Kames, consist of ice-contact
stratified drift of undifferentiated sand, gravel and silt.

The Dundalk model area is located within the Dundalk Till Plain region, being mostly covered
by the drumlinized till plain and bordered to the north by a spillway along the Saugeen River.
The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the
WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, only 15% of the wells in the county obtain water from overburden. In
the southern part of the county, the significant overburden aquifers consist of sands and

23
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
24
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
25
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
26
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-20
                                                                                               6. WHPA Modeling



gravels of beach, outwash, lacustrine, ice-contact and glaciofluvial deposits, having variable
well yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. Such aquifers occur in ice-contact stratified drift deposits, such as
the Saugeen Kames, and outwash deposits, such as spillways, which occur over and between
the morainal ridges. Till deposits, which have low permeabilities and cannot readily transmit
water, cover most of the county and often occur beneath other glacial deposits, such as
spillways, sand plains and peat and muck deposits.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey27, most groundwater supplies come from bedrock aquifers, with well
yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. The limestone and dolostone aquifers of the Salina, Guelph, Amabel
and Fossil Hill formations, encountered in the township, commonly have well yields of 0.8 to
3.8 L/s. Well yields greater than 3.8 L/s have been reported for wells in highly fractured
dolostone in the vicinity of Dundalk.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figure 6.9. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal well and is
oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest concentration of
wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels are also shown on
the cross-sections.
             6.5.2        Municipal Well Systems
Dundalk Water System
The Village of Dundalk Water System is located in the Township of Southgate, is represented
in the Dundalk model. This municipal system is comprised of three bedrock wells, Well #1 and
Well #2, both constructed in 1960, and Well #3 constructed in 1975. The water supply system
services the former Village of Dundalk, which has a population of 1,972 persons28. Figure 6.8
shows the location of the Dundalk wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their
proximity to local rivers and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.5.3        Model Design (Dundalk)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Dundalk model consists of 169 columns and 178 rows, with model
extents of 17.5 km by 16 km horizontally and 135 m vertically. Figure 6.8 presents the locations
of the WHPA model domain with respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Dundalk Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from northeast
to southwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 523 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 475 m amsl. The final


27
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Grey, Southern Ontario, Map 3111, Scale 1:100,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1980.
28
   Population data from 2001 Community Profiles, Statistics Canada


                                                                                                           6-21
6. WHPA Modeling



recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 70 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.6 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.6:     CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (DUNDALK)
 Geological Unit                      Hydraulic Conductivity
                                               (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                               6e-8
     Sand and Gravel                            5e-4
     Silt Till                                  6e-7
     Kame Materials                              --
     Exposed Bedrock                             --
 Bedrock Contact Zone                           1e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                        3e-6

             6.5.4    Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Dundalk model, the water levels of 176 observation wells within the model domain were
used for model calibration. The resulting calibration graph for the Dundalk model is presented
in Appendix E, having an NRMS value of 7.6 %. This NRMS value is less than 10%, therefore
indicating that this MODFLOW model generally represents the groundwater flow conditions in
the vicinity of the Dundalk municipal water supply system.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.8 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




6-22
                                                                                              6. WHPA Modeling



      6.6    Town of Hanover
The Town of Hanover is located in the County of Grey. Figure 6.10 shows WHPA model
domain and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to the Hanover WHPA model. The
Hanover model also includes the Lake Rosalind municipal well located in the Municipality of
Brockton in the County of Bruce.
             6.6.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario29
(1991), the surficial bedrock formation encountered within the Town of Hanover is the Salina
Formation (dolostone and shale). In the area of the Hanover model area, the uppermost
formation is also the Salina Formation. Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database
of the Ontario Petroleum Institute30, the municipal wells in the Hanover model area do not
penetrate deeper than the Salina Formation. This bedrock unit was represented as a single
continuous unit in the Hanover WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the vicinity of the Town of Hanover in general
consists of a till moraine and a drumlinized till plain separated by a large meltwater spillway31,
which are features of the two main physiographic regions in the area: the Horseshoe Moraines
and the Teeswater Drumlin Field.

In the area of the Hanover model, the main features of the Horseshoe Moraines are a till
moraine in the northwest and a broad spillway in the northeast. According to the MNR
Quaternary geology32, the till moraine, called the Singhampton Moraine, consists of Dunkeld
Till, a silt till with a low stone content, and the spillway consists of glaciofluvial outwash sand
and gravel. The broad spillway also contains a group of drumlins, possibly from the underlying
Teeswater Drumlin Field to the south, as well as an esker in the middle of the drumlins.

The majority of the Hanover model area is covered by the Teeswater Drumlin Field region,
which consists of a drumlinized till plain and spillways of sand and gravel terraces. According to
the Quaternary geology, the till plain and drumlins consist of mainly Elma Till, a stoney, sandy
silt to silt till. The spillways, which cover most of the till plain, generally follow the course of the
Saugeen River and its tributaries, and predominantly consist of glaciofluvial outwash sand.

The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the
WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, only 15% of the wells in the county obtain water from overburden. In
the southern part of the county, the significant overburden aquifers consist of sands and
gravels of beach, outwash, lacustrine, ice-contact and glaciofluvial deposits, having variable

29
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
30
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
31
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
32
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


                                                                                                          6-23
6. WHPA Modeling



well yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. Such aquifers occur in outwash deposits, such as spillways, which
occur over and between the morainal ridges. Till deposits, which have low permeabilities and
cannot readily transmit water, cover most of the county and often occur beneath other glacial
deposits, such as spillways, sand plains and peat and muck deposits.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey33, most groundwater supplies come from bedrock aquifers, with well
yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. The limestone and dolostone aquifers of the Salina formation,
encountered in the in the area of the Hanover model, commonly have well yields of 0.8 to 3.8
L/s. Well yields greater than 3.8 L/s have been reported for wells in highly fractured dolostone
in the vicinity of Hanover.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figure 6.11. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal well and is
oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest concentration of
wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels are also shown on
the cross-sections.
             6.6.2        Municipal Well Systems
Hanover Water System
Due to their proximity, the Hanover water supply system and the Lake Rosalind Water Works
were combined into one model, called the Hanover model. The Hanover water supply system,
located west of the Town of Hanover, uses water from the spring-fed Ruhl Lake and from two
overburden wells, Well #1 constructed in 1961 and Well #2 in 1986. Fifty percent of the water
supply comes from the lake and twenty-five percent from each of the wells, together supplying
water to a population of 6,600 people34 in the Town of Hanover.

Lake Rosalind Water System
The Lake Rosalind Water Works, located on the west side of Lake Rosalind in the Municipality
of Brockton, is comprised of one overburden well. Well #3 was constructed in 1987 and
services 68 residential lots (approximately 170 people35). Figure 6.10 shows the location of the
Hanover wells and the Lake Rosalind well, and their proximity to one another, as well as their
proximity to local rivers and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.6.3        Model Design (Hanover)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Hanover model consists of 120 columns and 108 rows, with model
extents of 13 km by 11 km horizontally and 170 m vertically. Figure 6.10 presents the locations
of the WHPA model domain with respect to the municipal boundary.

33
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Grey, Southern Ontario, Map 3111, Scale 1:100,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1980.
34
   First Engineer’s Report for the Town of Hanover, Hanover, Ontario, January 2001.
35
   Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, design population estimates, 2001).


6-24
                                                                                  6. WHPA Modeling



Model Boundaries
In the area of the Hanover Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to
west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 305 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 260 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 150 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.7 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials.

TABLE 6.7:     CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (HANOVER)
 Geological Unit                     Hydraulic Conductivity
                                              (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                              1e-7
     Sand and Gravel                           1e-4
     Silt Till                                 5e-7
     Kame Materials                            5e-7
     Exposed Bedrock                            --
 Bedrock Contact Zone                          1e-5
 Competent Bedrock Zones                       9e-6

            6.6.4     Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Hanover model, the water levels of 116 observation wells within the model domain were
used for model calibration. The resulting calibration graph for the Hanover model is presented
in Appendix E, having an NRMS value of 8.5 %. This NRMS value is less than 10%, therefore
indicating that this MODFLOW model generally represents the groundwater flow conditions in
the vicinity of the Hanover and Lake Rosalind municipal wells.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.10 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




                                                                                             6-25
6. WHPA Modeling



       6.7   Municipality of Grey Highlands
The Municipality of Grey Highlands is located in the County of Grey. Figure 6.12A shows the
model domain and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to the Markdale WHPA model.
Figure 6.12B shows the model domain and two (2) municipal wells corresponding to the
Feversham WHPA model. Figure 6.12C shows the model domain and two (2) springs
corresponding to the Kimberley WHPA model.
             6.7.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario36
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Municipality of Grey Highlands
are the Guelph Formation (dolostone), the Amabel Formation (dolostone), the Fossil Hill
Formation (dolostone), the Cabot Head Formation (mainly shale), Queenston Formation
(shale) and the Georgian Bay/Blue Mountain Formation (shale).

In the area of the Markdale model, only the Guelph Formation is encountered at the bedrock
surface, whereas in the Feversham model area, both the Guelph and Amabel Formations are
the uppermost bedrock formations. In the area of the Kimberley model, the Guelph, Amabel,
Fossil Hill, Cabot Head, Queenston and Georgian Bay/Blue Mountain Formations are all
encountered at the bedrock surface, in order from west to east over the Niagara Escarpment.

Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute37, the
Markdale municipal wells penetrate the Guelph, Amabel Formation and Fossil Hill Formations,
and the Feversham municipal wells penetrate the Guelph, Amabel, Fossil Hill, Cabot Head and
Queenston Formations, listed in order as encountered with depth. In the Kimberley model area,
the springs are located at the interface of the Cabot Head dolostone and the Queenston shale.
These bedrock units were represented as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Municipality of Grey Highlands consists of a
drumlinized till plain outlined by the Niagara Escarpment in the northern, central and eastern
areas of the municipality38. The main physiographic regions in the municipality are the
Horseshoe Moraines, the Dundalk Till Plain and the Beaver River Valley.

The Horseshoe Moraines region covers most of the municipality and consists of a drumlinized
till plain with till moraines crossing through it and along the top of the Niagara Escarpment.
According to the Quaternary geology defined by the MNR39, the till plain and drumlins consist
of Elma Till, a stony, sandy silt to silt till, as well as poorly-drained depressions with swampy
areas in the northwest. The till moraines, which also consist of the Elma till, are the Gibraltar
Moraine, which runs along the top of the escarpment in the north, and the Singhampton
Moraine, which crosses through the centre of the municipality and along the top of the
escarpment in the east. There are also spillways that follow the Beaver River and Rocky

36
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
37
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
38
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
39
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-26
                                                                                               6. WHPA Modeling



Saugeen River in the south, which consist of glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel. The
Saugeen Kames also appear in the Markdale area, which consist of glaciofluvial ice-contact
sand and gravel.

The Dundalk Till Plain occurs in the southern part of the municipality and consists of a poorly-
drained drumlinized till plain, with a spillway along the Saugeen River and a swampy area in
the east. According to the Quaternary geology, the till plain and drumlins consist of Elma Till, a
stony, sandy silt to silt till. The spillways consist of glaciofluvial outwash sand, and the swampy
area consists of peat and muck.

In the northeast of the municipality, the vertical dolostone cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment form
the steep sides of the Beaver River Valley. The valley sides are thinly covered by a stony-
bouldery till with a sandy silt matrix, which is likely the Elma Till, and fan deposits of gravel,
sand and silt.

The Markdale model area is located mainly in the Horseshoe Moraines region. The Feversham
model area is located in both the Horseshoe Moraines and the Dundalk Till Plain. The
Kimberley model area is located on the boundary between the Horseshoe Moraines region and
the Beaver River Valley, along the Niagara Escarpment.

The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the
WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey5, only 15% of the wells in the county obtain water from overburden. In
the north and along the Niagara Escarpment, the overburden is generally thin and consists of
poorly-sorted tills, with well yields of less than 0.2 L/s. Till deposits, which have low
permeabilities and cannot readily transmit water, cover most of the county and often occur
beneath other glacial deposits, such as spillways, sand plains and peat and muck deposits. In
the Bighead and Beaver River Valleys, the significant overburden aquifers consist of sands and
gravels of beach, outwash, lacustrine, ice-contact and glaciofluvial deposits, having variable
well yields of 0.2 to 3.8 L/s.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
In the County of Grey40, most groundwater supplies come from bedrock aquifers, with well
yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s common to the limestone and dolostone aquifers of the Guelph, Amabel
and Fossil Hill formations. The shales of the Cabot Head, Queenston and Georgian Bay
formations have low permeabilities, with well yields of 0.2 to 0.8 L/s. Well yields greater than
3.8 L/s have been reported for wells in highly fractured dolostone in the vicinity of Markdale.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.13A to 6.13C. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.



40
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Grey, Southern Ontario, Map 3111, Scale 1:100,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1980.


                                                                                                           6-27
6. WHPA Modeling



             6.7.2       Municipal Well Systems
Markdale Water System
The Village of Markdale Water Works, located in the Township of Grey Highlands, is
represented in the Markdale model. This municipal system is comprised of three bedrock wells,
the Isla Street well constructed in 1973, and Wells #3 and #4 constructed in 2002. The water
supply system services 652 residences in the former Village of Markdale (approximately 1,219
persons41), as well as a major ice cream manufacturer. Figure 6.12A shows the location of the
Markdale wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and
roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

After completing the initial modeling of the Markdale system, Henderson, Paddon & Associates
provided updated information on two new wells drilled in Markdale. These wells (Wells 3 and 4)
were drilled in the southeast part of Town. The Markdale model was updated with this new
information, re-calibrated, and an updated set of WHPA boundaries were generated.

Feversham Water System
The Feversham Water Supply System, located in the community of Feversham in the
Township of Grey Highlands, is represented in the Feversham model. This municipal system is
comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #2, constructed in 1974, and Well #3, constructed in
1982. The Feversham well #2 is a standby well. The water supply system services the Beaver
Heights Subdivision with an estimated population of 133 persons42. Figure 6.12B shows the
location of the Feversham wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to
local rivers and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Kimberley Water System
The Kimberley-Amik-Talisman Water Supply, located in the former Hamlet of Kimberley in the
Township of Grey Highlands, is represented in the Kimberley model. This municipal system is
comprised of two bedrock springs, Spring #1 and Spring #2. In 1988, the individual water
supply systems of the Hamlet of Kimberley, the Amik Subdivision and the Talisman Ski Resort
(including recreational and residential areas) were amalgamated into one, serving a total
population of approximately 645 persons43. Figure 6.12C shows the location of the Kimberley
springs and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads,
and to the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.7.3       Model Design (Markdale, Feversham, Kimberley Springs)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Markdale model consists of 152 columns and 163 rows, with model
extents of 15 km by 18 km horizontally and 190 m vertically. In the Feversham model, the grid
consists of 150 columns and 116 rows, with model extents of 18 km by 12 km horizontally and

41
   Engineer’s Report for the Township of Grey Highlands: Village of Markdale Water Works, Henderson, Paddon &
Associates Limited, Clarksburg, Ontario, March 2001.
42
   Engineer’s Report for the Township of Grey Highlands: Feversham Water Supply System, R. J. Burnside &
Associates Limited, Collingwood, Ontario, March 2001.
43
   Engineer’s Report for the Township of Grey Highlands: Kimberley-Amik-Talisman Water Supply, Henderson,
Paddon & Associates Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, January 2001.


6-28
                                                                                  6. WHPA Modeling



215 m vertically. In the Kimberley model, the grid consists of 115 columns and 100 rows, with
model extents of 8 km by 9.5 km horizontally and 350 m vertically. Figure 6.12 presents the
locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Markdale Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from southeast
to northwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 490 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 385 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 90 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Feversham Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to
west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 520 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 430 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 125 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Kimberley Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from west to
east, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 430 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 225 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 125 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.8 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.8:     CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (GREY HIGHLANDS)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                            5e-8 to 1e-7
     Sand and Gravel                         1e-4 to 2e-4
     Silt Till                               1e-7 to 6e-7
     Kame Materials                          1e-5 to 2e-5
     Exposed Bedrock                         5e-6 to 5e-5
 Bedrock Contact Zone                        5e-5 to 1e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                     4e-7 to 1e-5


            6.7.4      Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Markdale model, the water levels of 219 observation wells within the model domain were
used for model calibration. In the Feversham model, the heads of 235 observation wells within
the model domain were used for model calibration. In the Kimberley model, the heads of 25


                                                                                             6-29
6. WHPA Modeling



observation wells within the model domain were used for model calibration. The resulting
calibration graphs for the Markdale, Feversham and Kimberley models are presented in
Appendix E, having NRMS values of 8.5 %, 8.3 % and 8.5 %, respectively. These NRMS
values are less than or equal to 10%, therefore indicating that these MODFLOW models
generally represent the groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the Markdale, Feversham
and Kimberley municipal water supply systems.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.12 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




6-30
                                                                                              6. WHPA Modeling



      6.8    Municipality of Arran-Elderslie
The Municipality of Arran-Elderslie is located in the County of Bruce. Figure 6.14A shows the
model domain and two (2) municipal wells corresponding to the Tara WHPA model. Figure
6.14B shows the model domain and two (2) municipal wells corresponding to the Chesley
WHPA model.
             6.8.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario44
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie
are the Salina Formation (dolostone and shale) and the Guelph Formation (dolostone). In the
area of the Chesley model, the uppermost formations are the Salina Formation and the Guelph
Formation, from west to east, whereas in the Tara model area, the uppermost formation is the
Guelph Formation. Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario
Petroleum Institute45, the Chesley municipal wells only penetrate the Salina Formation,
whereas the Tara municipal wells penetrate the Guelph Formation, the Amabel Formation
(dolostone) and the Fossil Hill Formation (dolostone), listed in order as encountered with depth.
These bedrock units were represented as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie consists a
drumlinized till plain with a clay plain in the south and till moraines throughout46. The main
physiographic regions in the municipality are the Arran Drumlin Field, the Saugeen Clay Plain,
and the Horseshoe Moraines.

The Arran Drumlin Field region, in the northern half of the municipality, consists of a
drumlinized till plain with till moraines and disconnected clay plains. According to the
Quaternary geology defined by the MNR47, the till plain and drumlins consist of Elma-Catfish
Creek Till, a stony, sandy silt till. The till moraines, called the Banks Moraines in the south and
the Tara Strands in the northeast, are generally oriented east-west and consist of the Elma-
Catfish Creek Till and some ice-contact stratified sand and gravel, according to the MNR
Quaternary geology. On the south side of the till moraines are clay plains of glaciolacustrine
clay and silt, likely related to the Saugeen Clay Plain to the south.

The Saugeen Clay Plain region, located in the southern half of the municipality, in the drainage
basin of the Saugeen River, consists of deep stratified clay deposited by glacial Lake Warren.
According to the Quaternary geology, the clay plain consists of glaciolacustrine clay and silt.
There is a small group of drumlins on the clay plain northwest of Chesley, which consist of the
Elma-Catfish Creek Till of the Arran Drumlin Field to the north. The Gibraltar Moraine continues
across the clay plain from the Horseshoe Moraines in the east.




44
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
45
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
46
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
47
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


                                                                                                          6-31
6. WHPA Modeling



The Horseshoe Moraines region occurs on the east side of the Chesley model area, beyond
the municipality boundary, and consists of a till moraine and spillway overlying a till plain. The
till plain, according to the Quaternary geology, consists of a stony-bouldery till with a sandy silt
matrix, which is likely the Elma Till, a stony, sandy silt to silt till. The till moraine is part of the
Gibraltar Moraine and consists of the same till as in the till plain. The spillway, south of the
Gibraltar Moraine, and follows the course of the North Saugeen River, and consists mainly of
glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel.

The Chesley model area is located mainly in the Saugeen Clay Plain region, with part of the
Horseshoe Moraines region on the east side. The Tara model area is located entirely in the
Arran Drumlin Field region, in the area of the Tara Strands.

The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones for the
WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
The majority of wells in Bruce County48 obtained groundwater from bedrock aquifers. However,
there are some overburden aquifers in the sands and gravels of kames, spillways, sand plains
and beach ridges, with well yields ranging from 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. In the Arran Drumlin Field,
overburden aquifers are found in the Tara Moraines and in kames along the Willscroft Moraine,
southwest of Tara.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
Permeabilities of bedrock aquifers in Bruce County vary greatly depending on the degree of
fracturing and dissolution of the rock. Well yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s are common in limestone and
dolostone aquifers of the Salina, Guelph, Amabel and Fossil Hill formations. The alternating
dolostone and shale of the Salina Formation is moderately permeable, with well yields of 0.8 to
1.9 L/s. The Guelph Formation, a fine crystalline dolostone, has low to moderate permeability,
with well yields of 0.8 to 1.9 L/s in the southern part of the county.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.15A to 6.15B. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.8.2       Municipal Well Systems
Tara Water System
The Tara Water Works, located in the former Village of Tara in the Municipality of Arran-
Elderslie, is represented in the Tara model. This municipal system is comprised of two bedrock
wells, Well #2 constructed in 1960 and Well #3 constructed in 1978, which service 401
residences, businesses and institutions in the Village of Tara, a population of 841 people49.
Figure 6.14A shows the location of the Tara well #2 and the Tara well #3 and their proximity to
one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to the township and model
boundaries.

48
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce, Southern Ontario, Map 3101, Scale 1:250,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1986.
49
   Engineer’s Report for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie: Tara Water Works, Henderson, Paddon & Associates
Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, November 2000.


6-32
                                                                                               6. WHPA Modeling




Chesley Water System
The Chesley Water Works, located in the former Town of Chesley in the Municipality of Arran-
Elderslie, is represented in the Chesley model. This municipal system is comprised of two
wells, a bedrock well in Victoria Park constructed in 1937 and an overburden well in
Community Park constructed in 1948, which service the Town of Chesley having a population
of approximately 1,781 people50. Figure 6.14B shows the location of the Victoria Park well and
the Community Park Well and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local
rivers and roads, and to the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.8.3        Model Design (Tara, Chesley)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Tara model consists of 85 columns and 93 rows, with model extents of
10 km by 12 km horizontally and 150 m vertically. In the Chesley model, the grid consists of
168 columns and 133 rows, with model extents of 20 km by 15 km horizontally and 155 m
vertically. Figure 6.14 presents the locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to the
municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Tara Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to west,
as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are constant
head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 246 m amsl, and
downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 219 m amsl. The final recharge
value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100 mm/yr, which falls within the
range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Chesley Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to
west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 293 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 230 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.9 for each geologic unit.
These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).
             6.8.4        Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Tara model, the water levels of 125 observation wells within the model domain were
used for model calibration. In the Chesley model, the heads of 137 observation wells within the

50
  Engineer’s Report for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie: Chesley Water Works, Henderson, Paddon & Associates
Limited, Owen Sound, Ontario, November 2000.


                                                                                                           6-33
6. WHPA Modeling



model domain were used for model calibration. The WHPA models were calibrated such that
the observed heads matched those simulated by the MODFLOW model to an acceptable
degree. The resulting calibration graphs for the Tara and Chesley models are presented in
Appendix E, having NRMS values of 9.6 % and 5.9 %, respectively. These NRMS values are
less than or equal to 10%, therefore indicating that these MODFLOW models generally
represent the groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the Tara and Chesley municipal
wells.

TABLE 6.9:     CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (ARRAN-ELDERSLIE)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                            3e-7 to 5e-7
     Sand and Gravel                         6e-5 to 1e-4
     Silt Till                               1e-6 to 5e-6
     Kame Materials                              5e-6
     Exposed Bedrock                             1e-5
 Bedrock Contact Zone                         5e-4 to 8e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                      3e-5 to 7e-5

WHPA Results
Figure 6.14 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




6-34
                                                                                              6. WHPA Modeling



      6.9    Town of South Bruce Peninsula
The Town of South Bruce Peninsula is located in the County of Bruce. Figure 6.16 shows the
WHPA model domain and 14 municipal wells corresponding to the Sauble Beach WHPA
model.
             6.9.1       Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario51
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula
are the Salina Formation (dolostone and shale), the Guelph Formation (dolostone) and the
Amabel Formation (dolostone). In the area of the Sauble model, the uppermost formation in
mainly the Guelph Formation. Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the
Ontario Petroleum Institute52, the municipal wells in the Sauble model penetrate the Guelph
Formation, the Amabel Formation and the Fossil Hill Formation (dolostone), listed in order as
encountered with depth. These bedrock units were represented as a single continuous unit in
each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula consists of a
drumlinized dolostone plain in the north, a drumlinized till plain in the south and a sand plain
along the Lake Huron shoreline53. These three physiographic features correspond to the three
main physiographic regions of the town: the Bruce Peninsula, the Arran Drumlin Field and the
Huron Fringe, respectively.

The Bruce Peninsula region, in the north and east part of the town, consists of a dolostone
plain with thin overburden and a few drumlins. According to the Quaternary geology defined by
the MNR54, the dolostone plain consists of dolostone of the Guelph, Amabel and Fossil Hill
Formations. The thin overburden and drumlins on the plain consist of Bruce Till, a stony sandy
silt till. Due to its irregular surface, the dolostone plain has many swamps and small lakes,
consisting of bog deposits such as muck, marl and some peat, according to the Quaternary
geology. In addition, a sand plain, related to the Huron Fringe region to the west, overlies the
dolostone plain south of Colpoys Bay.

The Arran Drumlin Field region, in the south part of the town, consists of a drumlinized till plain.
According to the Quaternary geology, the till plain and drumlins consist of the Elma-Catfish
Creek Till, a stony, sandy silt till. In addition, along the border between the Arran Drumlin Field
and the Huron Fringe region, occur various beaches associated with the glacial Lake
Algonquin.

The Huron Fringe, located along the Lake Huron shoreline, consists of a sand plain with
boulders, gravel bars and sand dunes, and is bordered on the east by beaches and shorecliffs
of the glacial Lake Algonquin. According to the Quaternary geology, the sand plain consists of

51
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
52
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
53
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
54
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


                                                                                                          6-35
6. WHPA Modeling



glaciolacustrine shallow water deposits of massive to bedded sand. The beaches and
shorecliffs of Lake Algonquin consist of glaciolacustrine shoreline deposits of sand and gravel
in beaches, bars and spits. Along the present Lake Huron shoreline, there are glaciolacustrine
shoreline deposits of sand and gravel in beaches, bars and spits, related to the recent glacial
Lake Nipissing or present Lake Huron. In addition, on the border between the Huron Fringe
and the Bruce Peninsula regions, occurs a swampy area of bog deposits, between Boat Lake
and the Saugeen River.

The Sauble Beach model area is located mainly in the Huron Fringe region, except for part of
the Arran Drumlin Field in the south and part of the dolostone plain of Bruce Peninsula in the
northeast. The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the hydraulic conductivity zones
for the WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
The majority of wells in Bruce County55 obtained groundwater from bedrock aquifers. However,
there are some overburden aquifers in the sands and gravels of kames, spillways, sand plains
and beach ridges, with well yields ranging from 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. In the Bruce Peninsula, there are
no significant overburden aquifers because the overburden is generally thin (less than ten
metres thick) in this region. In the Arran Drumlin Field, overburden aquifers are found in the
Tara Moraines. In the Huron Slope region, overburden aquifers occur in the sand plains and
beach ridges east of Port Elgin and west of Hepworth.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
Permeabilities of bedrock aquifers in Bruce County vary greatly depending on the degree of
fracturing and dissolution of the rock. Well yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s are common in limestone and
dolostone aquifers of the Guelph and Amabel formations.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.17A to 6.17F. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.9.2       Municipal Well Systems
Sauble Beach and Oliphant Water Systems
The eleven municipal well systems in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula were combined into
one model called the Sauble Beach model. These municipal well systems consist of the
Fiddlehead Water Works #1, the Cammidge & Collins Water Works #2, the Robins Water
Works #3, the Fedy Water Works #4, the Forbes Water Works #5, the Trask Water Works #6,
the Huron Woods Water Works #7, the Foreman Water Works #8, the Thomson Water Works
#9, the Winburk Water Works #10 and the Gremik Water Works #11.

The Fiddlehead Water Works #1 and the Cammidge & Collins Water Works #2 are located
near the community of Oliphant, about 8 km north of Sauble Beach. The Fiddlehead Water
Works is comprised of one bedrock well, constructed in 1971, which currently services 13



55
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce, Southern Ontario, Map 3101, Scale 1:250,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1986.


6-36
                                                                                             6. WHPA Modeling



residential lots, approximately 33 people56 (approved for 45 residential lots). The Cammidge &
Collins Water Works is comprised of two bedrock wells. Well PW1-71, constructed in 1971, is
currently not in use, but is available for future use if required. Well PW2-84, constructed in
1984, currently services 11 residential lots, approximately 28 people (approved for 15
residential lots).

The Thomson Water Works #9 and the Gremik Water Works #11 are located on the north end
of Sauble Beach, on 7th Street and Gremik Crescent, respectively. The Thomson Water Works
is comprised of one bedrock well, constructed in 1976, which currently services 22 residential
lots, approximately 55 people (approved for 30 residential lots). The Gremik Water Works is
comprised of one bedrock well, constructed in 1978, which currently services 45 residential
lots, approximately 113 people (approved for 59 residential lots).

The Robins Water Works #3, the Fedy Water Works #4 and the Winburk Water Works #10 are
located northeast of the centre of Sauble Beach, on Dorena Crescent, Fedy Drive and
Bunnyview Drive, respectively. The Robins Water Works is comprised of one bedrock well,
constructed in 1970, which currently services 31 residential lots, approximately 78 people
(approved for 40 residential lots). The Fedy Water Works is comprised of one bedrock well,
constructed in 1971, which originally serviced 11 residential lots in the Fedy subdivision
(approved for 21 lots). Since 1996, the Fedy well has not been in use, and the Fedy customers
have since been serviced by the Winburk Water Works. The Winburk Water Works is
comprised of one bedrock well, constructed in 1978, which currently services 56 residential
lots, including 10 of the Fedy lots, for a total of approximately 140 people (approved for 93
residential lots).

The Forbes Water Works #5 and the Trask Water Works #6 are located in Sauble Beach, on
Manley Crescent and Davidson Drive, respectively. The Forbes Water Works is comprised of
one bedrock well, constructed in 1969, which currently services 25 residential lots,
approximately 63 people (approved for 34 residential lots). The Trask Water Works is
comprised of one bedrock well, constructed in 1978, which currently services 29 residential
lots, approximately 73 people (approved for 31 residential lots).

The Huron Woods Water Works #7 is located on the south end of Sauble Beach on Birch
Street. The Huron Woods Water Works is comprised of three bedrock wells and one
overburden well. The bedrock wells, Wells #1, #2 and #3, were constructed in 1969, 1973 and
1974, respectively. The overburden well, Well #6, was constructed in 1990. Wells #1 and #2
are standby wells, however in February 2001 Well #1 could not be operated and the pump
requires rehabilitation as soon as possible. Two additional wells #4 and #5, constructed in 1976
and 1980, respectively, were never developed for use. The Huron Woods Water Works
services 76 residential lots, approximately 190 people (approved for 141 residential lots; 122 in
the Huron Woods subdivision and 19 in the Walker Estates subdivision).

The Foreman Water Works #8 is located southeast of Sauble Beach, on Foreman Drive, on the
northeast side of Chesley Lake. The Foreman Water Works is comprised of one bedrock well,
constructed in 1972, which currently services 17 residential lots, approximately 43 people
(approved for 20 residential lots).



56
  Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, population estimates for design flows, Henderson, Paddon & Associates Limited, 2001).


                                                                                                         6-37
6. WHPA Modeling



Figure 6.16 shows the location of the municipal wells in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula
and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to
the township and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.9.3     Model Design (Sauble Beach)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Sauble Beach model consists of 242 columns and 315 rows, with model
extents of 15 km by 22.5 km horizontally and 160 m vertically. Figure 6.16 presents the
locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Sauble Beach Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east
to west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 233 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 177 m amsl, the level of
Lake Huron. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 75
mm/yr, which falls within the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.10 for each geologic
unit. These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.10:    CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                                1e-7
     Sand and Gravel                             1e-3
     Silt Till                                   4e-6
     Kame Materials                                --
     Exposed Bedrock                             3e-5
 Bedrock Contact Zone                            3e-5
 Competent Bedrock Zones                         3e-5

             6.9.4     Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Sauble Beach model, the water levels of 527 observation wells within the model domain
were used for model calibration. The resulting calibration graph for the Sauble Beach model is
presented in Figure 6.16, having an NRMS value of 6.5 %. This NRMS value is less than or
equal to 10%, therefore indicating that this MODFLOW model generally represents the
groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the municipal wells in the Town of South Bruce
Peninsula.


6-38
                                                                                 6. WHPA Modeling




WHPA Results
Figure 6.16 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




                                                                                            6-39
6. WHPA Modeling



       6.10 Municipality of Brockton
The Municipality of Brockton is located in the County of Bruce. Figure 6.18 shows the WHPA
model domains and one (1) municipal well corresponding to the Chepstow WHPA model.
             6.10.1      Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario57
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Municipality of Brockton are the
Detroit River Group (mainly limestone and dolostone), the Bois Blanc Formation (mainly
limestone) and the Bass Islands Formation (mainly dolostone) and the Salina Formation
(dolostone and shale). In the area of the Chepstow model, the uppermost formations are the
Detroit River Group, the Bois Blanc Formation, and the Bass Islands Formation, from west to
east. Based on the WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum
Institute58, the bedrock formations penetrated by the municipal wells in the Chepstow model
are the Detroit River Group, the Bois Blanc Formation and the Bass Islands Formation, listed in
order as encountered with depth. These bedrock units were represented as a single continuous
unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Municipality of Brockton consists a clay plain in
the north, a till moraine through the centre, and a drumlinized till plain in the south of the
municipality59. These three physiographic features correspond to the three main physiographic
regions in the township: the Saugeen Clay Plain, the Horseshoe Moraines, and the Teeswater
Drumlin Field, respectively.

The Saugeen Clay Plain region is located in the drainage basin of the Saugeen River and
consists of deep stratified clay deposited by glacial Lake Warren. According to the Quaternary
geology defined by the MNR60, this region consists of glaciolacustrine clay and silt, and the
sand plain, on the south side of the clay plain, consists of glaciofluvial outwash sand and
gravel.

The Horseshoe Moraines region consists of a till moraine, a kame moraine, a sand plain and a
till plain. The till moraine, called the Singhampton Moraine, crosses through the centre of the
municipality and, according to the Quaternary geology, consists of Dunkeld Till, a silt till with a
low stone content. The kame moraine, located west of Chepstow, consists of ice-contact
stratified drift, including sand, gravel, silt, and till. According to the Quaternary geology, the
sand plain, in the area of the Greenock Swamp, consists of lacustrine sand and silt, as well as
disconnected areas of peat and muck. The till plain in the west consists of St. Joseph Till, a
clayey silt to silt till with a very low stone content, and in the southwest, consists of Rannoch
Till, a silt to sandy silt till.




57
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
58
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
59
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
60
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-40
                                                                                                6. WHPA Modeling



The Teeswater Drumlin Field region, in the southern part of the municipality, consists of a
drumlinized till plain and spillways of sand and gravel terraces. According to the Quaternary
geology, the till plain and drumlins consist of mainly Elma Till, a stoney, sandy silt to silt till. The
spillways generally follow the courses of the Teeswater and Saugeen Rivers and their
tributaries, and consist of glaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand.

The Chepstow model area is located mainly in the Horseshoe Moraines region and the
Teeswater Drumlin Field region. The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the
overburden hydraulic conductivity zones for the WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
The majority of wells in Bruce County61 obtained groundwater from bedrock aquifers. However,
there are some overburden aquifers in the sands and gravels of kames, spillways, sand plains
and beach ridges, with well yields ranging from 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. In the Saugeen Clay Plain, there
is a major overburden aquifer in the sand plain between Eden Grove and Ellengowan. In the
Horseshoe Moraines, sand and gravel aquifers mainly occur in spillways in the Hanover-
Walkerton area.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
Permeabilities of bedrock aquifers in Bruce County vary greatly depending on the degree of
fracturing and dissolution of the rock. Well yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s are common in limestone and
dolostone aquifers of the Salina, Guelph, Amabel and Fossil Hill formations. The alternating
dolostone and shale of the Salina Formation is moderately permeable, with well yields of 0.8 to
1.9 L/s. The Guelph Formation, a fine crystalline dolostone, has low to moderate permeability,
with well yields of 0.8 to 1.9 L/s in the southern part of the county.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figure 6.19A. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal well and
is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest concentration of
wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels are also shown on
the cross-sections.
              6.10.2      Municipal Well System
Chepstow Water Systems
The Chepstow Water Works is located in the former Hamlet of Chepstow in the Municipality of
Brockton and is comprised of one bedrock well. The Chepstow well was constructed in 1978
and services 14 residential lots in the Powers Subdivision (approximately 35 people62).

The Chepstow Water Works was combined as a single model, called the Chepstow model.
Figure 6.18 shows the locations of the Chepstow well and its proximity to local rivers and
roads, and to the township and model boundaries.




61
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce, Southern Ontario, Map 3101, Scale 1:250,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1986.
62
   Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, design population estimates, 2001).


                                                                                                            6-41
6. WHPA Modeling



Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.10.3   Model Design (Chepstow)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Chepstow model consists of 147 columns and 94 rows, with model
extents of 24.5 km by 17 km horizontally and 215 m vertically. Figure 6.18 presents the
locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Chepstow Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from
southeast to north-northwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential
contours. There are constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a
maximum head of 320 m amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head
of 230 m amsl. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100
mm/yr, which falls within the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.11 for each geologic
unit. These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.11:    CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (BROCKTON)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                                1e-7
     Sand and Gravel                             2e-4
     Silt Till                                   6e-6
     Kame Materials                              1e-6
     Exposed Bedrock                               --
 Bedrock Contact Zone                            2e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                     1e-6 to 7e-6

             6.10.4   Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Chepstow model, the water levels of 266 observation wells within the model domain
were used for model calibration. The WHPA model was calibrated such that the observed
heads matched those simulated by the MODFLOW model to an acceptable degree. The
resulting calibration graph for the Chepstow model is presented in Appendix E, having an
NRMS value of 6.4 %. This NRMS value is less than or equal to 10%, therefore indicating that
this MODFLOW model generally represents the groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of
the Chepstow municipal well.




6-42
                                                                                 6. WHPA Modeling



WHPA Results
Figure 6.18 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for the municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




                                                                                            6-43
6. WHPA Modeling



       6.11 Township of Huron-Kinloss
The Township of Huron-Kinloss is located in the County of Bruce. Figure 6.20A shows the
model domains and 10 municipal wells corresponding to the Ripley and Huron West WHPA
models. Figure 6.20B shows the model domain and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to
the Lucknow WHPA model.
             6.11.1      Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). The bedrock surface encountered within the Township of Huron-
Kinoss is the Detroit River Group, consisting of mainly limestone and dolostone, as observed
from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario63 (1991). Based on the WWIS and the oil and
gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute64, the other bedrock formations penetrated
by the municipal wells in the Lucknow, Ripley and Huron West model areas, are the Bois Blanc
Formation (mainly limestone) and the Bass Islands Formation (mainly dolostone), in order as
encountered with depth. These bedrock units were represented as a single continuous unit in
each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Township of Huron-Kinoss consists mainly of till
moraines and till plains65. The main physiographic regions in the township are the Horseshoe
Moraines, the Huron Slope, and the Huron Fringe.

The Horseshoe Moraines region occurs in the southeastern half of the township and consists of
till and kame moraines, spillways of sand and gravel terraces, and till plains with a few
drumlins. According to the Quaternary geology defined by the MNR66, on the west side of the
Horseshoe Moraines region, the till moraines consists of St. Joseph Till, a clayey silt to silt till
with a very low stone content, and some Rannoch Till, a silt to sandy silt till, to the south, and
are called the Wyoming Moraines. A spillway, which consists of glaciofluvial outwash gravel
and gravelly sand, as well as modern alluvium such as silt, sand, gravel, crosses through the
till moraines along the path of the Lucknow River. East of the till moraines is a kame moraine
called the Wawanosh Moraine, which consists mainly of ice-contact stratified drift, including
sand, gravel, silt, and till. To the east, this moraine merges with a drumlinized till plain, which
consists of mainly Elma Till, a stoney, sandy silt to silt till.

The Huron Slope region occurs in the northwestern half of the township and consists of a
clayey till plain modified by a narrow sand plain and glacial Lake Warren beaches. In this
region, the till plain slopes from the Wyoming Moraine westward down to the shorecliff of
glacial Lake Algonquin. According to the Quaternary geology defined by the MNR, this bevelled
till plain consists of the clayey silt St. Joseph Till, and is bordered along its eastern side by twin
beaches of the glacial Lake Warren. West of the beaches is a narrow strip of sand deposited
over the till plain, which consists of near shore sand and gravel of the glacial Lake Warren, and
varies in width from 500m to 1,200m (estimated from physiographic map).

63
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
64
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
65
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
66
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


6-44
                                                                                                6. WHPA Modeling



On the western border of the municipality, the Huron Fringe region occurs between the glacial
Lake Algonquin Shorecliff and the current Lake Huron shoreline. The Huron Fringe region
consists of terraces with boulders, gravel bars and sand dunes, as well as beaches and
shorecliffs. According to the MNR Quaternary geology, the physiographic features in this region
consist of beach and near shore sand and gravel of recent glacial Lake Nipissing.

The Lucknow model area is located in Horseshoe Moraines region, the Ripley model area is
located on the border between the Horseshoe Moraines region and the Huron Slope region,
and the Huron West model area is along the shore of Lake Huron in the Huron Slope and
Huron Fringe regions. The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the overburden
hydraulic conductivity zones for the WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
The majority of wells in Bruce County67 obtained groundwater from bedrock aquifers. However,
there are some overburden aquifers in the sands and gravels of kames, spillways, sand plains
and beach ridges, with well yields ranging from 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. In the Horseshoe Moraines, sand
and gravel aquifers mainly occur in spillways. In the Huron Slope and Huron Fringe regions,
overburden aquifers occur in the sand plains and beach ridges.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
Permeabilities of bedrock aquifers in Bruce County vary greatly depending on the degree of
fracturing and dissolution of the rock. The limestone and dolostone of the Bois Blanc and Bass
Island formations are moderately permeable, with well yields of 0.8 to 1.9 L/s.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.21A to 6.21F. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.11.2      Municipal Well Systems
Lucknow and Whitechurch Water Systems
Due to their proximity, the Lucknow Water Works and the Whitechurch Water Works were
combined into one model, called the Lucknow model. The Lucknow Water Works is located in
the former Village of Lucknow in the Township of Huron-Kinloss and is comprised of two
bedrock wells. Well #4 constructed in 1959 and Well #5 in 1967, both supply water to a
population of approximately 1,136 people68.

The Whitechurch Water Works is located in the former Hamlet of Whitechurch, also in the
Township of Huron-Kinloss, and consists of one bedrock well, constructed in 1961. The
Whitechurch well supplies water to a population of approximately 335 people.

Figure 6.20B shows the location of the two Lucknow wells and the Whitechurch well and their
proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to the
township and model boundaries.



67
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce, Southern Ontario, Map 3101, Scale 1:250,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1986.
68
   Population data from 2001 Community Profiles, Statistics Canada


                                                                                                            6-45
6. WHPA Modeling



Ripley Water System
The Ripley municipal well system, located in the Village of Ripley in the Township of Huron-
Kinloss, is represented in the Ripley model. The Ripley municipal well system is comprised of
two bedrock wells. Well #1 constructed in 1947 and Well #2 in 1994, both supply water to a
population of approximately 680 people69. Figure 6.20A shows the location of the two Ripley
wells and their proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, as
well as to township and model boundaries.

Lakeshore Area Water System
The municipal wells in the western part of the Township of Huron-Kinloss were combined into
one model called the Huron West model. These municipal wells, located along the Lake Huron
shoreline, are called the Lakeshore Area Water Works. The Lakeshore Area Water Works
consists of four well sites, the Point Clark wells, the Blairs Grove wells, the Murdock Glen wells
and the Huronville South wells. Due to their vicinity, these well systems were combined into
one model called the Huron West model. The entire Lakeshore Area Water Works services
1409 residential lots, approximately 3,523 people70.

The Point Clark Development well site is comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #1 constructed
in 1979 and Well #2 in 1994. The Blairs Grove well site is also comprised of two bedrock wells,
Well #2 constructed in 1982 and Well #3 in 1994. The Blairs Grove well #2 is currently not in
use (not equipped with a pump). The Murdock Glen well site is comprised of two bedrock wells,
Well #1 constructed in 1983 and Well #2 in 1992. The Huronville South well site is also
comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #1 constructed in 1980 and Well #2 in 1994.

Figure 6.20A shows the location of the eight Lakeshore Area wells and their proximity to one
another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to township and model
boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.11.3      Model Design (Huron West, Ripley, Lucknow)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Huron West model consists of 179 columns and 217 rows, with model
extents of 14 km by 19 km horizontally and 240 m vertically. In the Ripley model, the grid
consists of 124 columns and 111 rows, with model extents of 13 km by 12 km horizontally and
200 m vertically. In the Lucknow model, the grid consists of 246 columns and 174 rows, with
model extents of 23.5 km by 12.5 km horizontally and 215 m vertically. Figure 6.20 presents
the locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Huron West Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to
west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 225 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 177 m amsl, the level of

69
  First Engineer's Report: Village of Ripley, Township of Huron-Kinloss, 2001, B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd.
70
  Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, design population estimates, 2001).


6-46
                                                                                   6. WHPA Modeling



Lake Huron. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 75
mm/yr, which falls within the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Ripley Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from east to west,
as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are constant
head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 279 m amsl, and
downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 210 m amsl. The final recharge
value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 75 mm/yr, which falls within the range
of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Lucknow Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from southeast
to northwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 311 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 240 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 90 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.12 for each geologic
unit. These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.12:    CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (HURON-KINLOSS)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                            1e-7 to 6e-7
     Sand and Gravel                         1e-4 to 2e-3
     Silt Till                               1e-7 to 6e-6
     Kame Materials                          1e-6 to 5e-6
     Exposed Bedrock                               --
 Bedrock Contact Zone                        1e-4 to 4e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                     4e-6 to 3e-4


            6.11.4    Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Huron West model, the water levels of 168 observation wells within the model domain
were used for model calibration. In the Ripley model, the heads of 71 observation wells within
the model domain were used for model calibration. In the Lucknow model, the heads of 112
observation wells within the model domain were used for model calibration. The resulting
calibration graphs for the Huron West, Ripley and Lucknow models are presented in Appendix
E, having NRMS values of 7.3 %, 5.7 % and 5.8 %, respectively. These NRMS values are less
than or equal to 10%, therefore indicating that these MODFLOW models generally represent
the groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the municipal wells in Huron-Kinloss
Township.




                                                                                              6-47
6. WHPA Modeling



WHPA Results
Figure 6.20 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




6-48
                                                                                              6. WHPA Modeling



      6.12 Municipality of South Bruce
The Municipality of South Bruce is located in the County of Bruce. Figure 6.22 shows the
model domains and three (3) municipal wells corresponding to the Mildmay and Teeswater
WHPA models.
             6.12.1      Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). As observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario71
(1991), the surficial bedrock formations encountered within the Municipality of South Bruce are
the Detroit River Group (mainly limestone and dolostone), the Bois Blanc Formation (mainly
limestone) and the Bass Islands Formation (mainly dolostone) and the Salina Formation
(dolostone and shale). In the area of the Teeswater model, the Detroit River Group is the
uppermost bedrock formation, whereas in the Mildmay model area, the uppermost formations
are the Bois Blanc, Bass Islands and Salina Formations from west to east. Based on the WWIS
and the petroleum well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute72, the bedrock formations
penetrated by the Teeswater and Mildmay municipal wells are the Detroit River Group, the Bois
Blanc Formation and the Bass Islands Formation, in order as encountered with depth. These
bedrock units were represented as a single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Municipality of South Bruce mainly consists of a
drumlinized till plain traversed by glacial meltwater spillways73. The main physiographic regions
in the municipality are the Teeswater Drumlin Field and the Horseshoe Moraines.

The Teeswater Drumlin Field region occurs over most of the municipality and consists of a
drumlinized till plain, spillways of sand and gravel terraces, and kame moraines. According to
the Quaternary geology defined by the MNR74, the till plain and drumlins consist of mainly Elma
Till, a stoney, sandy silt to silt till. The spillways generally follow the courses of the Teeswater
River and Formosa Creek and their tributaries, and consist of glaciofluvial outwash gravel and
gravelly sand. Kame moraines and associated outwash occur in south and east parts of the
municipality, such as the group of sandhills to the south of Mildmay and Neustadt, called the
Saugeen Kames. According to the Quaternary geology, these kame moraines mainly consist of
ice-contact stratified drift, including sand, gravel, silt, and till.

The Horseshoe Moraines region occurs on the western part of the municipality and consists of
spillways, a kame moraine and a till plain. According to the Quaternary geology, the spillways
consist of terraces of glaciofluvial outwash gravel and gravelly sand, which follow the path of
the Teeswater River and its tributaries. The kame moraine, called the Wawanosh Moraine,
consists of ice-contact stratified drift of sand, gravel, silt, and till, which merges with the till plain
to the north and south. The till plain consists of Rannoch Till, a silt to sandy silt till, and Elma
Till, a stoney, sandy silt to silt till.


71
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
72
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
73
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
74
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


                                                                                                          6-49
6. WHPA Modeling



Both the Teeswater and Mildmay model areas are located in the Teeswater Drumlin Field
region. The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the overburden hydraulic
conductivity zones for the WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
The majority of wells in Bruce County75 obtained groundwater from bedrock aquifers. However,
there are some overburden aquifers in the sands and gravels of kames, spillways, sand plains
and beach ridges, with well yields ranging from 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. In the Teeswater Drumlin Field,
sand and gravel aquifers are found in the Saugeen kames and spillways along the southern
boundary. In the Horseshoe Moraines, sand and gravel aquifers mainly occur in spillways in
the Hanover-Walkerton area.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
Permeabilities of bedrock aquifers in Bruce County vary greatly depending on the degree of
fracturing and dissolution of the rock. The limestone and dolostone of the Detroit River Group
are moderately to highly permeable, having solution cavities, such as joints and caverns that
are well developed in places, resulting in average well yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s. The limestone
and dolostone of the Bois Blanc and Bass Island formations are moderately permeable, with
well yields of 0.8 to 1.9 L/s.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.23A and 6.23B. Each cross-section passes through at least one
municipal well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.12.2      Municipal Well Systems
Mildmay Water System
The Mildmay Water System, located in the former Village of Mildmay in the Municipality of
South Bruce, is represented in the Mildmay model. The Mildmay Water System is comprised of
two bedrock wells, Well #1 constructed in 1968 and Well #2 in 1989, which services the former
Village of Mildmay and adjacent development, having a population of approximately 1,200
people76. The Mildmay well #2 is a standby well. Figure 6.22 shows the location of the two
Mildmay wells and their proximity to local rivers and roads, as well as its proximity to the
township and model boundaries.

Teeswater Water System
The Teeswater Water System, located in the former Village of Teeswater in the Municipality of
South Bruce, is represented in the Teeswater model. The Teeswater Water System is
comprised of an artesian bedrock well, Well #3 constructed in 1996, and services the former
Village of Teeswater and adjacent development, having a population of approximately 1,000
people77. Figure 6.22 shows the location of the Teeswater well and its proximity to local rivers
and roads, as well as its proximity to the township and model boundaries.


75
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce, Southern Ontario, Map 3101, Scale 1:250,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1986.
76
   Engineer’s Report for the Municipality of South Bruce: Mildmay Water System, Maitland Engineering, Wingham,
Ontario, May 2001.
77
   Engineer’s Report for the Municipality of South Bruce: Teeswater Water System, Maitland Engineering, Wingham,
Ontario, May 2001.


6-50
                                                                                   6. WHPA Modeling



Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
            6.12.3    Model Design (Mildmay, Teeswater)
Model Grid
The grid for the Mildmay model consists of 87 columns and 87 rows, with model extents of 11
km by 13 km horizontally and 240 m vertically. In the Teeswater model, the grid consists of 88
columns and 105 rows, with model extents of 12 km by 15 km horizontally and 200 m vertically.
Figure 6.22 presents the locations of the WHPA model domains with respect to the municipal
boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Mildmay Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from south to
north, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 360 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 290 m amsl. The final
recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 95 mm/yr, which falls within
the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Teeswater Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from
southeast to northwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours.
There are constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of
322 m amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 270 m amsl. The
final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 100 mm/yr, which falls
within the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.13 for each geologic
unit. These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.13:    CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (SOUTH BRUCE)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                            3e-7 to 5e-7
     Sand and Gravel                         6e-5 to 1e-4
     Silt Till                               1e-6 to 5e-6
     Kame Materials                              5e-6
     Exposed Bedrock                             1e-5
 Bedrock Contact Zone                        5e-4 to 8e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                     3e-5 to 7e-5




                                                                                              6-51
6. WHPA Modeling



             6.12.4   Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Mildmay model, the water levels of 75 observation wells within the model domain were
used for model calibration. In the Teeswater model, the heads of 53 observation wells within
the model domain were used for model calibration. The resulting calibration graphs for the
Mildmay and Teeswater models are presented in Appendix E, having NRMS values of 6.2 %
and 8.1 %, respectively. These NRMS values are less than or equal to 10%, therefore
indicating that these MODFLOW models generally represent the groundwater flow conditions in
the vicinity of the Mildmay and Teeswater municipal wells.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.22 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




6-52
                                                                                              6. WHPA Modeling



      6.13 Municipality of Kincardine
The Municipality of Kincardine is located in the County of Bruce. Figure 6.24 shows the WHPA
model domains and nine (9) municipal wells corresponding to the Kincardine South and
Kincardine North WHPA models.
             6.13.1      Local Aquifer Characterization
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock geology on a regional-scale is described in Section 2.7.2 (Regional Groundwater
and Aquifer Characterization). The main surficial bedrock formation encountered within the
Municipality of Kincardine is the Detroit River Group, consisting of mainly limestone and
dolostone, as observed from the map of the Bedrock Geology of Ontario78 (1991). In the
northeastern part of the municipality, the Bois Blanc Formation (mainly limestone) and the Bass
Islands Formation (mainly dolostone) are encountered at the bedrock surface. Based on the
WWIS and the oil and gas well database of the Ontario Petroleum Institute79, the bedrock
formations penetrated by the municipal wells in the Kincardine South and Kincardine North
model areas are the Detroit River Group, the Bois Blanc Formation and the Bass Islands
Formation, in order as encountered with depth. These bedrock units were represented as a
single continuous unit in each WHPA model.

Quaternary Geology
The Quaternary, or overburden, geology in the Municipality of Kincardine consists mainly of a
till plain80. The main physiographic regions in the township are the Horseshoe Moraines, the
Huron Slope, and the Huron Fringe.

The Horseshoe Moraines region occurs in the southeastern part of the municipality, where the
Wyoming till moraine passes through a till plain. According to the Quaternary geology defined
by the MNR81, the till moraine and till plain both consist of St. Joseph Till, a clayey silt to silt till
with a very low stone content.

The Huron Slope region, which occurs over most of the municipality, consists of a clayey till
plain, bordered in the southeast by twin beaches of the glacial Lake Warren and in the west by
the shorecliff of glacial Lake Algonquin. In the southern part of the municipality, a narrow strip
of sand occurs on the west side of the Lake Warren beaches. According to the Quaternary
geology, the sand plain and Lake Warren beaches consist of near shore sand and gravel of the
glacial Lake Warren, and the till plain consists of the clayey silt St. Joseph Till.

On the western border of the municipality, the Huron Fringe region occurs between the glacial
Lake Algonquin Shorecliff and the current Lake Huron shoreline. The Huron Fringe region
consists of terraces with boulders, gravel bars and sand dunes, as well as beaches and
shorecliffs. According to the Quaternary geology, the physiographic features in this region
consist of beach and near shore sand and gravel of recent glacial Lake Nipissing.

The Kincardine South model area is mainly located in Huron Slope region, with the Horseshoe
Moraines region in the eastern upland area and the Huron Fringe region in the western
78
   Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet, Map 2544, Scale 1:1,000,000, Ministry of Northern Development
and Mines, 1991.
79
   Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Library, digital well database, Ontario Petroleum Institute, Ministry of Natural
Resources, 2002.
80
   Chapman, L.J., and Putnam, D.F., 1984, Physiography of Southern Ontario, Ontario Geological Survey, Map
P.2715, Scale 1:600,000.
81
   Ministry of Natural Resources, NRVIS data, Quaternary geology, Maps 2956 and 2957.


                                                                                                          6-53
6. WHPA Modeling



shoreline area. The eastern half of the Kincardine South model area is located in the Huron
Slope region, and the western half in the Huron Fringe region.

The MNR Quaternary geology was used to estimate the overburden hydraulic conductivity
zones for the WHPA modeling.

Overburden Hydrogeology
The majority of wells in Bruce County82 obtained groundwater from bedrock aquifers. However,
there are some overburden aquifers in the sands and gravels of kames, spillways, sand plains
and beach ridges, with well yields ranging from 0.2 to 3.8 L/s. In the Horseshoe Moraines, sand
and gravel aquifers mainly occur in spillways. In the Huron Slope and Huron Fringe regions,
overburden aquifers occur in the sand plains and beach ridges.

Bedrock Hydrogeology
Permeabilities of bedrock aquifers in Bruce County vary greatly depending on the degree of
fracturing and dissolution of the rock. The limestone and dolostone of the Detroit River Group
are moderately to highly permeable, having solution cavities, such as joints and caverns that
are well developed in places, resulting in average well yields of 0.8 to 3.8 L/s. The limestone
and dolostone of the Bois Blanc and Bass Island formations are moderately permeable, with
well yields of 0.8 to 1.9 L/s.

Local Cross-sections
Geologic cross-sections were generated using well information from the WWIS and are
presented in Figures 6.25A to 6.25E. Each cross-section passes through at least one municipal
well and is oriented either north-south or east-west, along the direction of the highest
concentration of wells. Aquifer locations (screened intervals) and corresponding water levels
are also shown on the cross-sections.
              6.13.2      Municipal Well Systems
Kincardine South
The municipal well systems in the southern part of the Municipality of Kincardine were
combined into one model called the Kincardine South model. These municipal well systems
consist of the Port Head Estates Well Supply, the Lake Huron Highlands Well Supply, the
Craig-Eskrick Well Supply, the Kinhuron Well Supply and the Tiverton Well Supply.

The Port Head Estates Well Supply is comprised of one bedrock well, Well #1 constructed in
1991, which services 4 residential lots, approximately 10 people83. The Lake Huron Highlands
Well Supply is comprised of two bedrock wells, Well #1 constructed in 1971 and Well #2 in
1981, which services 43 residential lots, approximately 108 people. The Lake Huron Highlands
well #1 is a standby well.

The Craig-Eskrick Well Supply is comprised of one bedrock well, Well #1 constructed in 1981,
which services 30 residential lots, approximately 75 people. The Kinhuron Well Supply is
comprised of one bedrock well, Well #1 constructed in 1971, which services 30 residential lots,
approximately 75 people. The Tiverton Well Supply is comprised of two bedrock wells, the Dent


82
   Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce, Southern Ontario, Map 3101, Scale 1:250,000, Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 1986.
83
   Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, design population estimates, 2001).


6-54
                                                                                             6. WHPA Modeling



Well constructed in 1971 and the Briar Hill Well in 1981, which services 250 residential lots,
approximately 625 people.

Figure 6.24 shows the location of the Port Head Estates well, the two Lake Huron Highlands
wells, the Craig-Eskrick well, the Kinhuron well and the two Tiverton wells, and their proximity
to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to township and model
boundaries.

Kincardine North
The municipal well systems in the northern part of the Municipality of Kincardine were
combined into one model called the Kincardine North model. These municipal well systems
consist of the Underwood Well Supply and the Scott Point Well Supply.

The Underwood Well Supply is comprised of one bedrock well, Well #1 constructed in 1972,
which services 35 residential lots and 10 commercial lots, approximately 113 people84. The
Scott Point Well Supply is comprised of one bedrock well, Well #1 constructed in 1970, which
services 39 residential lots, approximately 98 people.

Figure 6.24 shows the location of the Underwood well and the Scott Point well, and their
proximity to one another, as well as their proximity to local rivers and roads, and to township
and model boundaries.

Average Production Rates
Average pumping rates for each municipal well were estimated based on raw water flow rates
averaged over the last five years and are presented in Appendix F. These pumping rates were
used to represent the wells in the groundwater model.
             6.13.3      Model Design (Kincardine North, Kincardine South)
Model Grid
The model grid for the Kincardine North model consists of 196 columns and 166 rows, with
model extents of 17.5 km by 14 km horizontally and 270 m vertically. In the Kincardine South
model, the grid consists of 229 columns and 300 rows, with model extents of 18 km by 15.5 km
horizontally and 295 m vertically. Figure 6.24 presents the locations of the WHPA model
domains with respect to the municipal boundary.

Model Boundaries
In the area of the Kincardine North Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from
southeast to northwest, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours.
There are constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of
260 m amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 176 m amsl, the
level of Lake Huron. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration
was 80 mm/yr, which falls within the range of values typical for this region.

In the area of the Kincardine South Model, groundwater flow in the bedrock is generally from
east to west, as can be seen from Figure 2.21 of the bedrock equipotential contours. There are
constant head boundaries upgradient of the flow system, having a maximum head of 271 m
amsl, and downgradient of the flow system, having a minimum head of 176 m amsl, the level of


84
  Based on an estimated 2.5 persons per residence (Engineer’s Report, Town of South Bruce Peninsula, County of
Bruce, design population estimates, 2001).


                                                                                                         6-55
6. WHPA Modeling



Lake Huron. The final recharge value used to obtain a reasonable model calibration was 125
mm/yr, which falls within the range of values typical for this region.

Hydrogeologic Properties
Final calibrated hydraulic conductivity values are presented in Table 6.14 for each geologic
unit. These hydraulic conductivity values are consistent with those recorded in the literature for
these materials (refer to Section 6.1.4).

TABLE 6.14:    CALIBRATED VALUES FOR HYDROGEOLOGIC PROPERTIES (KINCARDINE)
 Geological Unit                       Hydraulic Conductivity
                                                (m/s)
 Overburden Zones:
     Clay or Peat                                1e-6
     Sand and Gravel                         9e-5 to 1e-4
     Silt Till                               4e-6 to 1e-5
     Kame Materials                                --
     Exposed Bedrock                             1e-4
 Bedrock Contact Zone                         9e-5 to 1e-4
 Competent Bedrock Zones                      1e-5 to 3e-5

             6.13.4    Model Results
Model Calibration
In the Kincardine North model, the water levels of 87 observation wells within the model
domain were used for model calibration. In the Kincardine South model, the heads of 364
observation wells within the model domain were used for model calibration. The resulting
calibration graphs for the Kincardine North and Kincardine South models are presented in
Appendix E, having NRMS values of 4.7 % and 5.5 %, respectively. These NRMS values are
less than or equal to 10%, therefore indicating that these MODFLOW models generally
represent the groundwater flow conditions in the vicinity of the municipal wells in the
Municipality of Kincardine.

WHPA Results
Figure 6.24 shows the steady-state capture zone for each municipal well. The municipal well
production information and the pumping rates used for the calibration and the capture zone
delineation are presented in Appendix F. The pumping rates used for model calibration
correspond to the average production rate, over the last five years, for each well, plus the 20-
year projected rate. The 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and steady state capture zones,
developed for each municipal well, are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. Additional
analysis using the WHPAs, potential contaminant sources, and intrinsic susceptibility results
are also presented in Chapter 7.




6-56
                                                                                 6. WHPA Modeling



      6.14 Summary
Numerical models were developed for 45 municipal well systems in Grey and Bruce Counties,
which include:

·   Township of Georgian Bluffs (Shallow Lake, Forest Heights, Maple Crest and Pottawatomi
    Village);
·   Township of Chatsworth (Chatsworth and Walter’s Falls);
·   Municipality of West Grey (Neustadt and Durham)
·   Township of Southgate (Dundalk);
·   Town of Hanover (Hanover);
·   Municipality of Grey Highlands (Markdale, Feversham and Kimberley Springs);
·   Municipality of Arran-Elderslie (Tara and Chesley);
·   Town of South Bruce Peninsula (Huron Woods, Forbes, Trask, Robins, Winburk,
    Fiddlehead, Fedy, Cammidge & Collins, Gremik, Foreman and Thomson);
·   Municipality of Brockton (Lake Rosiland, Chepstow);
·   Municipality of Huron-Kinloss (Ripley, Lucknow, Point Clark, Blairs Grove, Murdock Glen,
    Huronville, and Whitechurch);
·   Municipality of South Bruce (Mildmay and Teeswater); and,
·   Municipality of Kincardine (Tiverton, Underwood, Scott Point, Kinhuron, Craig Estrick, Lake
    Huron Highlands and Point Head Estates).

The original Terms of Reference indicated that WHPA modeling was to be completed on the
Town of Saugeen Shores municipal system. However, the Town recently completed a pipeline
to connect the Miramichi Estates and Miramichi Shores developments to the existing surface
water supply system. Also, the Geeson Avenue well in Walkerton was taken out of service.
Markdale decommissioned one municipal well, and added 2 new municipal wells to the
groundwater supply system. As such, these municipal wells are being decommissioned so that
no WHPA modeling was needed.

All of these models were developed using Visual MODFLOW, and calibrated to steady-state
water levels in the wells from the Water Well Information System database. These calibrated
models were used to delineate WHPAs for each of the municipal wells.

The WHPA results are shown is a series of WHPA maps for each Municipality. In addition, a
1:200,000 map (Figure 6.26) was created on a 30 in. by 36 in. layouts to show the WHPA
boundaries from a more regional perspective, at a more detailed larger scale. They show the
50-day, 2-year, 10-year and 25-year time-of-travel capture zone. These results represent the
current best estimate of the different capture zones. However, their sizes and shapes will
change in the future as wells are added and removed, and as water demands change. As
additional information becomes available, the validity of the different models should be
evaluated to help ensure that protective measures continue to be directed in the appropriate
areas. Incorporating additional geologic and pumping information into the model will not be
difficult now that the models have been constructed and calibrated. The timing of future model
review should be timed to coincide with the development and decommissioning of well fields in
each of the different municipalities.




                                                                                            6-57
                                                                             7. Integration of Study Results




7     Integration of Study Results
      7.1   Overview
As part of this groundwater study, three data layers were developed that have an impact on the
groundwater quality that is withdrawn at each municipal well. These layers are the aquifer
intrinsic susceptibility, the potential contaminant sources inventory, and the WHPA boundaries.
Integrating these themes in a GIS allows for simultaneous consideration of three important
parameters that affect groundwater quality protection. GIS is widely used as a comprehensive
system capable of assembling, storing, manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced
information.
      7.2   Methodology and Data Sources
            7.2.1      Intrinsic Susceptibility Overlay
Regional aquifer intrinsic susceptibility mapping was presented in Section 3. The mapping was
completed using the methodology outlined in the Technical Terms of Reference (MOE, 2001).
Areas of high susceptibility represent zones where water moves more quickly to the aquifer than
in areas of low susceptibility. In areas of low susceptibility, ground surface contamination is less
likely to impact the aquifer of concern. Areas of high and medium intrinsic susceptibility found
within WHPA boundaries are very sensitive zones from a groundwater protection perspective. In
areas of high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be
designed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries, and that suitable policies be
developed for the appropriate County and local Official Plans.
            7.2.2      Potential Contaminant Sources Overlay
Regional-scale potential contaminant sources mapping was presented in Section 5. Further
local-scale ground-truthing was conducted throughout each of the WHPA boundaries that were
delineated in Section 6. During the ground-truthing, field technicians drove through the steady-
state capture zone identifying land uses that are more likely to impact groundwater quality. The
specific land uses outlined by the MOE (2001) include:

•   Dry cleaners and Laundromats;
•   Fuel storage and distributing operations;
•   Industrial manufacturers;
•   Golf Courses;
•   Landfills;
•   Salvage Yards;
•   Rail Yards; and,
•   Other land uses.
            7.2.3      Wellhead Protection Area Overlay
The WHPAs for each municipal well, generated using three-dimensional MODFLOW models,
were presented in Section 6. For each wellfield, the 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and steady
state capture zones were mapped. A WHPA boundary is the two-dimensional projection onto
the ground surface of the three-dimensional volume of groundwater that is pumped from a
wellfield. Water that recharges the groundwater environment within a WHPA boundary will be
pumped from the well at some time in the future. WHPAs represent the most sensitive area
surrounding a municipal wellfield.




                                                                                                        7-1
7. Integration of Study Results



Figures 7.1 to 7.22 present the integration of these overlays for the municipal groundwater
systems that were modeled. Understanding the locations of land uses that pose a risk to
groundwater quality, in WHPAs that have medium to high susceptibility, provides a means of
identifying the most sensitive areas that surround each municipal well. These issues will be
discussed, by township, in the following sections.
        7.3     Township of Georgian Bluffs
Figures 7.1 and 7.2 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Township of Georgian Bluffs, along with other base mapping features that are discussed in the
                                     s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by Gamsby & Mannerow (2001), for the
Forest Heights Water System, the Maple Crest Water System, the Pottawatomi Village Water
System and the Shallow Lake Water System, the susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers
in the vicinity of the municipal systems is summarized below.
                7.3.1             Shallow Lake Water System
Figure 7.1 presents the integration of study results for the Shallow Lake system. The Shallow
Lake wells are located in medium-textured soils in an area with rolling surface topography. The
WHPAs transect Highway 70 east of Owen Sound. Land use is largely agriculture, mainly
pasture land with some cropland and significant areas of swamp and bush. The agriculture is
largely devoted to cattle production with solid manure handling systems. There are some areas
of reforestation, which likely recognizes the best land use for the capability of the soil.

                            s
According to the Engineer’ Report, the raw water quality from the Shallow Lake Wells #2 and
#3 is generally poor, both bacteriologically and chemically. “  Bacteriological concentrations,
turbidity and DOC are consistently high.” The water quality changes rapidly with weather
conditions, indicating the influence of surface water on the groundwater. Potential sources of
microbiological contamination of the groundwater were not mentioned in the report. However,
possible sources of microbiological contamination could be municipal or private sewer systems.
The report also states that a petroleum (BTEX) plume was identified in 1999 upgradient from
the Shallow Lake wells, however no BTEX was detected in the municipal wells.

Shallow Lake Wells #2 and #3 draw water from a fractured bedrock aquifer in an area of karst
topography. The well record for Well #3 indicates that there is 2.7 m of clay overlying the
fractured limestone aquifer, which could provide some degree of natural protection for the
aquifer from surface activities, because of the low permeability of clay. However, due to the
shallowness of the aquifer, this natural protection could be limited.

The Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area surrounding the WHPA boundaries are
designated as medium susceptibility, which is likely a result of the thin layer of clay overlying the
bedrock aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal
planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.

Shallow Lake Well #1 was disconnected from the system in 1999. The Engineer’ Reports
recommends that if this well is not to be used as a future source of water, it should be
decommissioned according to MOE guidelines, so that it will not become a conduit of surface
contamination to the aquifer.
                7.3.2             Forest Heights Water System
Figure 7.2 presents the integration of study results for the Forest Heights system. Wells #1 and
#2 of the Forest Heights System obtain water from the combined overburden and bedrock
aquifers. The WHPAs are located in an area mapped as Tecumseth sand, within which land use


7-2
                                                                            7. Integration of Study Results



includes low intensity farmland and swamps. There appears to be some degree of natural
protection for the aquifer due to the presence of 10.6 m to 11.5 m of sandy clay in the
overburden near the wells, which overlies the gravel and limestone/shale aquifer. Due to the low
permeability of clay, it likely acts as an aquitard to protect the aquifer from surface activities.
                              s
According to the Engineer’ Report, the raw water quality from the Forest Heights wells is
generally good, with the only concern being elevated turbidity levels, possibly due to elevated
levels of iron and manganese. Potential sources of contamination to the groundwater were not
mentioned in the report.

However, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as high susceptibility, which is likely a result
of higher permeability material regionally above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of high
susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be designed to
restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.3.3     Maple Crest Subdivision Water System
Figure 7.2 presents the integration of study results for the Maple Crest system. Wells #1 and #2
are located in grassed areas of the Maple Crest Subdivision and obtain water from the same
bedrock aquifer. The WHPAs are located in an area mapped as Tecumseth sand, which
includes areas mapped as Breypen soils (shallow, variable soils with bedrock outcrops). Land
use appears to be a mixture of pasture and bush with some residential development. According
                  s
to the Engineer’ Report, there is concern of elevated levels of total coliform in raw water
samples. In the vicinity of the wells, the potential sources of contamination to the wells could be
private septic systems or abandoned wells. However, since there is no apparent evidence of
septic effluent impacting the aquifer, the three privately-owned wells in the subdivision, which
are no longer in use, could be possible sources of microbiological contamination.
Recommendations were made in the report to properly decommission these wells according to
MOE guidelines.

According to the MOE Water Well Record for Well #1, 13.0 m of silty sand overburden overlies
the shale aquifer. According to the records for Well #2 and Well #3, there is a thickness of 7.0 m
and 6.7 m, respectively, of clay in the overburden, which overlies the shale aquifer. The low
permeability of clay likely provides some degree of natural protection for the aquifer near Wells
#2 and #3, whereas the aquifer near Well #1 does not have the same protection. Maple Crest
Well #3 is no longer in use and was disconnected from the system. The Engineer’ Report   s
recommends that if this well is not to be used as a future source of water, it should be
decommissioned according to MOE guidelines, so that it will not become a conduit of surface
contamination to the aquifer.

However, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as high susceptibility, which is likely a result
of the thin overburden above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of high susceptibility, it is
recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.3.4     Pottawatomi Village Water System
Figure 7.2 presents the integration of study results for the Pottawatomi Village system. Wells #1
and #2 are located in grassed areas in the subdivision and obtain water from the same bedrock
aquifer. The 50-day WHPA is located in an area mapped as clay loam, the 2-year WHPA
crosses an area of variable soil with rock outcrops (mapped as Breypen), and the 25-year
WHPA contains an area of silty clay loam with some sand. According to the Engineer's Report,


                                                                                                       7-3
7. Integration of Study Results



there appears to be some degree of natural protection for the aquifer due to the presence of
25.6 m to 27.4 m of sandy stony clay overburden near the wells, which overlies the shale
aquifer. The low permeability of clay likely acts as an aquitard to protect the aquifer from surface
activities, and, it is unlikely the wells be impacted by surface contamination.

However, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility map shows that the area surrounding
the WHPA boundaries is designated as medium to high susceptibility. According to the Aquifer
Evaluation for the municipal wells, the overburden material surrounding the wellfield is sand,
and "The Physiography of Southern Ontario" indicates that the area is mapped as a sand plain.
Thus the medium to high susceptibility is likely a result of thin, coarse-grained overburden
material. In areas of medium or high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal
planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
        7.4     Township of Chatsworth
Figures 7.3 and 7.4 present each of the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Township of Chatsworth, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                   s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by Henderson, Paddon & Associates
                                                      s
(2001) for the Chatsworth Water Works and the Walter’ Falls Water Works, the susceptibility to
contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal systems is discussed and is
summarized below.
                7.4.1             Chatsworth System
Figure 7.3 presents the integration of study results for the Chatsworth system. The WHPAs are
large and are oriented eastward toward the recharge areas adjacent to the Niagara
Escarpment. Land use in the vicinity of the Chatsworth wells can give an indication of potential
sources of contamination to groundwater. To the west of Wells #1 and #2 is the floodplain and
lowlands of the Spey River, and to the east and southeast are agricultural lands. There is also a
small subdivision 200 to 300 m southeast of the wells that are serviced by private septic
                          s
systems. The Engineer’ Report recommends that the municipality obtain the land that
recharges Wells #1 and #2 in order to act as a protective zone for the wells.

Chatsworth Wells #1 and #2 both draw water from a shale aquifer. According to the records for
Well #1 and Well #2, there is 2.7 m and 2.9 m of clay, respectively, overlying the bedrock
aquifer. Due to the low permeability of clay, it likely acts as an aquitard to protect the aquifer
from surface activities. However the protection may be limited due to the shallowness of the
aquifer. The raw water quality from the Chatsworth wells is generally good. However, concerns
were expressed of a past chemical spill on Highway 10, located southwest of the wells. The
report recommends that the risk of contamination to the aquifer associated with the spill be
evaluated. Recommendations were also made to investigate the impact of the Spey River,
which may be recharging the aquifer.

Chatsworth Well #3 is no longer in use and is for emergency purposes only. Recommendations
                              s
were made in the Engineer’ Report to remove the discharge piping for this well in order to
prevent a cross connection to the distribution system. Well #3 is located in a subdivision,
however potential contamination impacts were not discussed in the report. The well record for
Well #3 indicates that there is 14 m of clay overlying the bedrock aquifer, which could provide
some degree of protection to the aquifer, due to the low permeability of clay.

On a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility, which is likely a result of the
thin overburden above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of medium or high susceptibility, it is


7-4
                                                                                 7. Integration of Study Results



recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.4.2             s
                        Walter’ Falls System
                                                                   s
Figure 7.4 presents the integration of study results for the Walter’ Falls system. The WHPAs
are small and oriented eastward toward the recharge areas of the Niagara Escarpment. In the
          s
Engineer’ Report for the Walters Falls wells, there was concern expressed about the presence
of bacteria, nitrate and chloride in raw water samples, which is likely due to the impact of
agricultural practices in the area. Both wells are located within a cultivated field and are
susceptible to contamination from fertilizers and manure spreading. The wells are located in an
area of medium textured soils, mapped as Osprey loam. Land use is a mix of swampland with
soft maple, cedar and poplar species, some upland hardwood bush and low intensity farmland
in close proximity.

Based on test drilling, there is a total thickness of clay and silt till of 1.8 m overlying the fractured
dolostone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 8.5 m. There is a limited thickness of clay and
till in the overburden and the presence of substantial boulders, which may limit the protection
that the overburden provides to the bedrock aquifer. In addition, the bedrock aquifer is relatively
shallow, which increases the susceptibility of the aquifer to contamination. The Engineer’ report s
also states that the wells are under the influence of surface water contamination, either from the
          s
Walter’ Falls Creek, or from the recharge of contaminated water from local agricultural
activities. Recommendations were made for the municipality to obtain the land or control the
land use in the area required as a protective zone for the wells, and to improve the long-term
security of the aquifer.

This is corroborated by the regional-scale Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the
area surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as high susceptibility. This is likely a
result of the thin overburden above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of medium or high
susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to
restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
      7.5   Municipality of West Grey
Figures 7.5 and 7.6 present each of the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Municipality of West Grey, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                   s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by KMK Consultants Limited (2001), for
the Neustadt Groundwater Supply System, and by D. J. Peach and Associates (2001), for the
Durham Municipal Water Works, the susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity
of the municipal systems is discussed and is summarized below.
            7.5.1       Neustadt Groundwater Supply System
Figure 7.5 presents the integration of study results for the Neustadt system. The WHPAs are
                                                 s
long and thin, and according to the Engineer’ Report, the recharge areas for the Neustadt wells
are not explicitly protected. The wells are each located in grassed areas surrounded by
agricultural land consisting of rolling topography with mixed crop, bush and pastureland. The
area in the vicinity of the well has livestock facilities. The majority of the area within the WHPAs
is devoted to cash crops and some bush. There are a few residences to the east of Well #1
which are presumed to have septic systems, the closest one being 60 m from the well. There
are cattle operations located approximately 100 m northeast and 180 m west of Wells #2 and #3
with visible manure piles.




                                                                                                            7-5
7. Integration of Study Results



The well record for Well #1 indicates that there is 17.6 m of clay with sand, gravel and stones
overlying the limestone/shale aquifer, which is located at a depth of 32 m. The well records for
Well #2 and Well #3 indicate that there is 7 m of clay, silt and gravel overlying the
limestone/shale aquifer, which is located at a depth of 11 m. Due to the low permeability of clay,
it likely acts as an aquitard to protect the aquifer from surface activities. According to the
           s
Engineer’ Report, the raw water bacteriological quality from the Neustadt wells is generally
good, however hardness levels are high.

However, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility. This is
likely a result of the higher permeability material above the aquifer on a regional-scale, which
increases the risk of contaminants impacting the aquifer. In areas of medium or high
susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to
restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
                7.5.2             Durham Municipal System
Figure 7.6 presents the integration of study results for the Durham system. The WHPAs are
long and thin, and are oriented eastward toward the recharge areas in the vicinity of
                                           s
McWilliams. According to the Engineer’ Report, the recharge area for the Durham wells is not
explicitly protected. The wells are located in residential areas, which are possibly serviced by a
municipal sewer system. There is a gravel pit located approximately 300 m southeast of Well
1B. Due to limited overburden protection and the shallowness of the aquifer, the land use in the
vicinity of the wells could pose a risk of contaminating the aquifer.

The well record for Well #1A indicates that there is sand and gravel, and 0.9 m of shale,
overlying the limestone aquifer, located at a depth of 11.5 m. The well record for Well #1B
indicates that there is 4.2 m of clay overlying the limestone aquifer, located at a depth of 6.7 m.
The record for Well #2 indicates that the limestone surface is encountered at a depth of only 0.3
m in this artesian well. Natural protection of the aquifer from surface activities is limited by the
limited overburden thickness and the relative shallowness of the bedrock aquifer. The chemical,
physical and bacteriological quality of the raw water from both wells is very good, with the
exception of hardness. The good groundwater quality may be attributed to the absence of
agricultural and industrial land uses upstream of the wells, as well as the strong upward gradient
in the aquifer.

Durham Well #1A was abandoned due to borehole instability. The Engineer’ Report         s
recommends that the well be properly decommissioned according to MOE guidelines, so that it
will not become a conduit of surface contamination to the aquifer. Well #1 is also not in use but
is available for emergency supply. If Well #1 is abandoned in the future, it should also be
properly decommissioned.

The Intrinsic Susceptibility map shows that the area surrounding the WHPA boundaries are
designated as high susceptibility. This is likely a result of the high conductivity materials
overlying the bedrock aquifer. In areas of high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate
municipal planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
        7.6     Township of Southgate
Figure 7.7 presents each of the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Township of Southgate, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                   s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by Triton Engineering Services (2001)



7-6
                                                                           7. Integration of Study Results



for the Village of Dundalk Water System, the susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers in
the vicinity of the municipal systems is discussed and is summarized below.
            7.6.1     Village of Dundalk Water System
Figure 7.7 presents the integration of study results for the Dundalk system. The WHPAs are
large, encompassing much of Dundalk and are oriented northeastward toward the recharge
                                                                    s
areas along the Niagara Escarpment. According to the Engineer’ Report, the recharge area for
the Dundalk wells is not explicitly protected. Well #1 is located in a small grassy area with
residential areas to the north and west and commercial areas to the south and east. Dundalk is
serviced by a municipal sewage collection and treatment system. Well #2 is located in a
residential area with a hydro transformer station adjacent to the well and an abandoned rail line
to the south of the well. Well #3 is located in a grassy area between a residential area to the
northeast and an industrial area to the south. There is a landfill 500 m southwest of the well.

The land uses surrounding the wells are not considered to be sources of excessive risk of
contamination to the aquifer, as the aquifer is relatively deep and has some overburden
protection. The well record for Well #1 indicates that there is 17.7 m of hardpan (silt till)
overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 28.5 m. The well record for Well
#2 indicates that there is a combined thickness of 15.2 m of hardpan (silt till) and sandy clay,
overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 47.2 m. The well record for Well
#3 indicates that there is a combined thickness of 27.4 m of hardpan (silt till) and clay with
stones, overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 34.7 m. Land use in the
50-day and 2-year WHPAs is urban. There are some patches of swamp within the urban area.
Soils of the area are medium-texture silt loam (mapped as Listowel and Harriston soils). The
area in the 10-year WHPA is a combination of low intensity livestock production with some
annual crops and swamp land. Farther out, land uses are similar with low intensity livestock
production using solid manure systems, interspersed with areas of swampland.

               s
The Engineer’ Report indicates that the raw water bacteriological quality from the Dundalk
wells is generally poor with respect to total coliform and E. coli, prior to treatment. The report
also states that, in the fall of 2000, elevated levels of arsenic and selenium were found in
shallow groundwater samples (from weed control sprays) in front of the transformer station
property. The area was subsequently remediated, and since then, raw water from Well #2 is
                                                              s
monitored annually for arsenic and selenium. The Engineer’ report also recommends regular
testing of 2,4,6 trichlorophenol (found in pesticides), radionuclides, and trihalomethanes for
each well, as these chemicals were detected in all three wells in the past.

The Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows, that at a regional-scale, the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility. This is likely a result of the
higher permeability material above the limestone aquifer on a regional-scale, which increases
the risk of contaminants impacting the aquifer. In areas of medium or high susceptibility, it is
recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
      7.7   Town of Hanover
Figure 7.8 presents the integration of study results for the Hanover system, along with other
                                                                                     s
base mapping features, which are discussed in the following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports
completed by B.M. Ross and Associates (2000) for the Hanover Water Supply, the susceptibility
to contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal wells is discussed and is
summarized below.



                                                                                                      7-7
7. Integration of Study Results



                7.7.1             Hanover System
The WHPAs for the Hanover wells are oriented in a northwestard direction, and encompass
portions of the Marl Lakes and Ruhl Creek. Well #2 is located southeast of the Marl Lakes and
Well #1 is located about 650 m west of Well #2, 300 m west of the Marl Lakes. Land use around
the Marl Lakes is residential, with some low density agriculture including pasture land and some
cash crops in the surrounding vicinity. The surface soils in the area are relatively coarse
textured well-sorted glacial outwash, which indicates fairly rapid infiltration and good internal
drainage. There is also an municipal airport within the WHPA.

Despite the presence of an agricultural area near the wells, the raw water quality from the
                                                                 s
Hanover wells is generally good, according to the Engineer’ report. This is likely due to the
natural protection of a clay layer overlying the aquifer. The well record for Well #1 indicates that
there is 8.2 m of clay overlying the sand and gravel aquifer located at a depth of 10.3 m. The
well record for Well #2 indicates that there is a total of 32 m of clay overlying the gravel aquifer
located at a depth of 43 m.

However, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as medium susceptibility. This is likely a
result of the higher permeability material above the aquifer on a regional-scale providing
potential conduits for contaminants to impact the aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is
recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
        7.8     Municipality of Grey Highlands
Figures 7.9 to 7.11 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Municipality of Grey Highlands, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in
                                               s
the following sections. In the First Engineer’ Reports completed by Henderson, Paddon &
Associates (2001), for the Village of Markdale Water Works and the Kimberley-Amik-Talisman
Water Supply, and by R. J. Burnside & Associates (2001), for the Feversham Water Supply
System, the susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal
systems is discussed and is summarized below.
                7.8.1             Village of Markdale System
Figure 7.9 presents the integration of study results for the Markdale system. The WHPAs are
large, encompassing much of the Markdale, and are oriented eastward toward the recharge
areas of the Rocky Saugeen River. Protection of the bedrock aquifer in the vicinity of the
Markdale wells is limited, due to the absence of low permeability material (such as clay) in the
overburden. In addition, the bedrock aquifer is relatively shallow in the vicinity of the Terra Drive
Well, thus increasing the susceptibility of the aquifer to contamination. According to the MOE
water well record for the Isla Street Well, there is 22 m of sand and gravel overlying a gravel or
dolomite aquifer. According to the record for the Terra Drive Well, there is 1.2 m of sand
overlying the dolomite/shale aquifer.

               s
The Engineer’ Report indicates that the raw water quality from the Isla Street Well is generally
good. However, the Terra Drive Well has regular occurrences of microbiological contamination
of raw water samples, and appears to be under the influence of surface water, such as from a
tributary to the Rocky Saugeen River about 100 m north of the well. The microbiological
contamination could also be due to septic field leachate from a low-density residential area
located upgradient from the well. Because of these problems, the Terra Drive well was
decommissioned and two (2) new wells were developed for the Village of Markdale.


7-8
                                                                              7. Integration of Study Results




This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as high susceptibility. This is likely a result of
the thin overburden material overlying the bedrock aquifer. The WHPAs are principally located
in an area of medium-textured glacial till, mapped as Harriston soil. The WHPAs also contains
an area of bottom land associated with a surface drainage channel and several areas of organic
soils. The 50-day and 2-year WHPAs are located within the urban area interspersed with some
areas of swamp. The 10-year WHPA is mainly rolling topography interspersed with areas of
swamp. The managed land use is agriculture, predominantly forage and pasture production for
beef with some areas of cereal production. There is also an area of aggregate extraction within
the 10-year WHPA.

In areas of high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures
be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.8.2      Feversham Water Supply System
Figure 7.10 presents the integration of study results for the Feversham (Beaver Heights)
system. The WHPAs are long and thin, and are oriented southeastward toward the recharge
areas at the watershed divide between the Beaver, Saugeen and Mad Rivers. Land use in the
vicinity of the Feversham wells provides an indication of possible sources of contamination to
groundwater. The land use on the north, east and south sides of Wells #2 and #3 is residential
and on the west side is pasture. The residential areas are serviced by private septic systems,
which could be potential sources of contamination to the aquifer. The land slopes to the
northwest towards the Beaver River, located 250 m from the wells.

For the area within the 50-day and 2-year WHPA, the land ranges from swampy to rough land
and depressions including some unimproved pasture and reforestation. This area includes soils
mapped as highly variable (Donnybrook soils) in close proximity to the well, trending to medium-
textured Osprey loam farther away from the well. In the area of medium-textured soils, the
topography becomes more rolling and the land use is mixed agriculture (cattle production with
solid manure systems, pasture and forage production). The area is also interspersed with
                                                  s
depressional areas of swampland. The Engineer’ Report states that the wells are not likely
under the direct influence of surface water as they are greater than 100 m from the Beaver
River. However, there is a thin layer of coarse-grained material surrounding the wells, which
puts into question whether the water being pumped from the well is under the direct influence of
surface water.

The well records for Well #2 and Well #3 indicate that there is 6 m of gravel overlying the
limestone/shale aquifer. Due to the lack of low permeability materials in the overburden, the
natural protection to the bedrock aquifer may be limited. In addition, the bedrock aquifer is
relatively shallow, thus increasing the susceptibility of the aquifer to contamination. Well #1 is no
longer in use. If this well is not to be used as a future source of water, it should be
decommissioned according to MOE guidelines, so that it will not become a conduit for
contamination of the aquifer.

The Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows, that at a regional-scale, the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium susceptibility. This is likely a result of the
moderately permeable material above the limestone aquifer on a regional-scale. In areas of
medium or high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures
be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.



                                                                                                         7-9
7. Integration of Study Results



                7.8.3             Kimberley Springs System
Figure 7.11 presents the integration of study results for the Kimberley Springs system. The
WHPAs are very localized, and are located on the side of the valley of the Beaver River, in a
steeply sloping area mapped as eroded silty clay loam (Vincent soil). The entire area is
moderately to well treed roughland. Kimberley Springs #1 and #2 occur at the bottom of a
vertical bedrock face, near a dolostone/shale interface, where the dolostone is more fractured
                                            s
than the shale. According to the Engineer’ Report, the raw water samples from both springs
regularly contain total and fecal coliform levels, as well as elevated turbidity levels related to
high precipitation events. The report concludes that “  the springs are under the influence of
surface water and surface contamination and require full water treatment” .

This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as high susceptibility. This is likely a result of
the thin overburden material overlying the bedrock aquifer, which is representative of the face of
the Niagara Escarpment. In areas of high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate
municipal planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
        7.9     Municipality of Arran-Elderslie
Figures 7.12 and 7.13 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in
                                             s
the following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by Henderson, Paddon &
Associates Limited (2000) for the Chesley Water Works and the Tara Water Works, the
susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal systems is
discussed and is summarized below.
                7.9.1             Tara System
Figure 7.12 presents the integration of study results for the Tara system. The WHPAs are long
and thin, and are oriented eastward toward the recharge areas in the vicinity of Keady Creek.
                            s
According to the Engineer’ Report, the raw water quality of the Tara wells is generally good.
However, due to occasional detections of toluene, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and
xylene in raw water samples from both Well #2 and Well #3, concern was expressed of possible
future contamination of these wells. Levels of sodium, hardness, dissolved organic carbon,
organic nitrogen and aluminium were also of concern. Recommendations were made to drill a
new water well in a location better protected from surface activities, either by the presence of an
aquitard and/or by land use control.

The well record for Well #2 indicates that there is 8.2 m of stony till in the overburden overlying
the bedrock aquifer, which is located at depths of 79 m and 109 m. The record for Well #3
indicates that there is 1.8 m of stony till in the overburden overlying the bedrock aquifer, located
at depths of 61 m and 96 m. Even though these are deep bedrock wells, the lack of low
permeability materials in the overburden indicates that there may be limited natural protection
for the bedrock aquifer.

This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as high susceptibility. This is likely a result of
the high conductivity material overlying the bedrock aquifer. In areas of high susceptibility, it is
recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.




7-10
                                                                           7. Integration of Study Results



                                                                                 s
Tara Well #1 is no longer in use due to petroleum odour in the well. The Engineer’ Report
recommends that this well should be decommissioned according to MOE guidelines, so that it
will not become a conduit of surface contamination to the aquifer.
            7.9.2     Chesley System
Figure 7.13 presents the integration of study results for the Chesley system. The WHPAs are
long and thin, and are oriented eastward toward the recharge areas between the North
Saugeen River and Deer Creek. Land use in the vicinity of the Chesley wells can give an
indication of potential sources of contamination to groundwater. The Community Park well is
surrounded by the Community Park, which is owned by the municipality. Therefore, the
municipality can control the surface activities within the park and thus provide some protection
to the aquifer. The Victoria Park well does not have the same protection as the Community Park
well because it is not surrounded by municipally-owned land. There is an industrial unit to the
south of the well and a residential area to the north.

In August 2000, the sanitary sewer system in Chesley was determined to be in very poor
condition and is likely leaking sewage into the ground. However, the raw water quality from both
wells does not show this contamination, which could be due to the thick clay overburden
protecting the aquifer. According to the MOE water well record for the Community Park well,
there is more than 11.3 m of clay overburden overlying the sand and gravel aquifer, which is
located at a depth of 12.1 m. According to the record for the Victoria Park well, there is more
than 24 m of clay in the overburden overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth
of 36.5 m. Due to the low permeability of clay, it likely acts as an aquitard to protect both the
overburden and bedrock aquifers from surface activities.

The Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows, that at a regional-scale, the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium susceptibility, and the steady-state capture zone
touches areas of high susceptibility. On a regional-scale, there is likely higher permeability
material that could provide a potential conduit for contaminants to impact the bedrock aquifer. In
areas of medium or high susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning
measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.

It is suspected that private wells could be a potential source of contamination to the municipal
wells, and should be abandoned in accordance with MOE guidelines.
      7.10 Town of South Bruce Peninsula
Figures 7.14A to 7.14D present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Town of South Bruce Peninsula, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed
                                             s
in the following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by Henderson, Paddon &
Associates (2001) for each of the eleven municipal well systems in the Town of South Bruce
Peninsula, the susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal
systems is discussed and is summarized below.
            7.10.1    Fiddlehead System
Figure 7.14A presents the integration of study results for the Fiddlehead system. The WHPAs
are short and thin, due to the low pumping rate of the well. These WHPAs are located in areas
of outwash deposit mapped as Plainfield sand and Grandby Sandy Loam, overlain by areas of
swamp and scrub bush. The landform is rolling and there are a limited number of residential
areas within and close to the capture zones. There is no indication of agricultural activities and
the CLI agricultural capability rating would suggest that there is no potential for agriculture.



                                                                                                    7-11
7. Integration of Study Results



                s
The Engineer’ Report expresses concerns about the occasional detection in the past of total
coliform and E. coli in raw water samples from the Fiddlehead well, as well as frequent high
levels of iron, which result in turbidity problems during treatment. The report also states that the
recharge area for the Well #2 is not explicitly protected. A low-density residential area with
private septic systems surrounds the well. This surrounding land use is a potential source of
contamination to the aquifer, which has little overburden protection. This is corroborated by the
Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area surrounding the WHPAs is
designated as high susceptibility. According to the MOE water well record for the Fiddlehead
well, there is 10 m of sand overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 26 m.
Therefore, the limestone aquifer has little natural protection from surface contamination due to
the absence of low permeability materials in the overburden. In areas of medium or high
susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to
restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
                7.10.2            Cammidge & Collins System
Figure 7.14A presents the integration of study results for the Cammidge & Collins system.
Similar to the Fiddlehead well, the WHPAs are short and thin, and located in areas of outwash
                                                                                     s
deposit (sandy loam), overlain by areas of swamp and scrub bush. The Engineer’ Report for
the Cammidge & Collins Water Works #2 expresses concerns about the occasional detection in
the past of total coliform in raw water samples from Well #2, as well as elevated levels of iron
and turbidity. The report also states that the recharge area for the Well #2 is not explicitly
protected. A low-density residential area with private septic systems surrounds the well. This
surrounding land use is a potential source of contamination to the aquifer, which has little
overburden protection. This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows
that the area surrounding the WHPAs is designated as high susceptibility. According to the
MOE water well record for Well #2, there is only 1.5 m of sandy clay overlying the limestone
aquifer, which is located at a depth of 48.8 m. In areas of medium or high susceptibility, it is
recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.

                                                                      s
Cammidge & Collins Well #1 was abandoned, and the Engineer’ Report recommends that, if
this well is not to be used as a future source of water, it should be decommissioned according to
MOE guidelines, so that it will not become a conduit of surface contamination to the aquifer.
                7.10.3            Robins System
Figure 7.14B presents the integration of study results for the Robins system. The WHPAs are
long and thin and are oriented eastward toward the recharge areas between the Rankin and
                                                 s
Sauble Rivers. According to the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is
occasionally poor in the Robins well, with respect to total coliform. As well, fluoride and iron
levels are occasionally high. The report also states that the recharge area for the well is not
explicitly protected. A low-density residential area with private septic systems surrounds the well
and the Sauble River is located approximately 50 m west of the well. This surrounding land use
is not considered to be a source of risk of contamination to the aquifer, as the aquifer is
relatively deep and has some overburden protection. The well record indicates that there is 9.1
m of sandy hardpan material overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 27.4
m.
                7.10.4            Forbes System
Figure 7.14B presents the integration of study results for the Forbes system. The WHPAs are
short and thin, and are oriented eastward and upgradient toward the Sauble River. According to
              s
the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is generally good in the Forbes well.


7-12
                                                                              7. Integration of Study Results



However, iron levels are often high. The report also states that the recharge area for the well is
not explicitly protected. A low-density residential area with private septic systems surrounds the
well. This surrounding land use is not considered to be a source of risk of contamination to the
aquifer, as the aquifer is relatively deep and has some overburden protection. According to the
well record, there is 9.1 m of clay with boulders overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located
at a depth of 18.2 m.
            7.10.5     Trask System
Figure 7.14B presents the integration of study results for the Trask system. The WHPAs are
long and thin, and are oriented southeastward toward the recharge areas of the Sauble River
                                                     s
around Maryville Lake. According to the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is
generally poor in the Trask well, with respect to total coliform. However, fluoride and sodium
levels are often high. The report also states that the recharge area for the well is not explicitly
protected. A low-density residential area with private septic systems surrounds the well. This
surrounding land use is not considered to be a source of risk of contamination to the aquifer, as
the aquifer is relatively deep and has some overburden protection. According to the water well
record, there is 9.1 m of clay with boulders overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a
depth of approximately 102 m.
            7.10.6     Thomson System
Figure 7.14B presents the integration of study results for the Thomson system. The WHPAs are
short and thin, and are oriented eastward and upgradient toward the Sauble River. According to
              s
the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is generally good in the Thomson well.
However, barium, fluoride and hardness objectives have been exceeded in the past. The report
also states that the recharge area for the well is not explicitly protected. A low-density residential
area with private septic systems surrounds the well. This surrounding land use is not considered
to be a source of risk of contamination to the aquifer, as the aquifer is relatively deep and has
some overburden protection. According to the well record, there is 4.5 m of clay with stones
overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 24.3 m.
            7.10.7     Winburk System
Figure 7.14B presents the integration of study results for the Winburk system. The WHPAs are
long and thin, and are oriented southeastward toward the recharge areas of the Sauble River
                                                   s
around Gould Lake. According to the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is
generally poor in the Winburk well, with respect to total coliform. However, iron and fluoride
levels have been occasionally high in the past. The report also states that the recharge area for
the well is not explicitly protected. A low-density residential area with private septic systems
surrounds the well. This surrounding land use is not considered to be a source of risk of
contamination to the aquifer, as the aquifer is relatively deep and has some overburden
protection. According to the well record, there is 8.5 m of hardpan with boulders overlying the
limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 42.6 m.
            7.10.8     Fedy System
                            s
According to the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is generally good in the
Fedy well. However, iron levels are occasionally high. The report also states that the recharge
area for the well is not explicitly protected. A low-density residential area with private septic
systems, and some vacant land, surround the well. This surrounding land use is not considered
to be a source of risk of contamination to the aquifer, as the aquifer is relatively deep and has
some overburden protection. According to the MOE water well record for the well, there is 18.3
m of clay with boulders overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 44.2 m.



                                                                                                       7-13
7. Integration of Study Results



When the Fedy distribution system was connected to the Winburk system in 1996, the Fedy well
was put out of service. The Fedy well could possibly be used as a backup for the Winburk
system when needed. If this well is not to be used as a future source of water, it should be
decommissioned according to MOE guidelines, so that it will not become a conduit of
contamination to the aquifer.
                7.10.9            Gremik System
Figure 7.14B presents the integration of study results for the Gremik system. The WHPAs are
short and thin, and are oriented eastward and upgradient toward the Sauble River. According to
               s
the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological quality is generally good in the Gremik well.
However, fluoride levels are occasionally high. The report also states that the recharge area for
the well is not explicitly protected. A low-density residential area with private septic systems,
and vacant land, surround the well. This surrounding land use is not considered to be a source
of risk of contamination to the aquifer. However, according to the well record, there is only 2.1 m
of clay with stones overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 16.7 m.
                7.10.10 Huron Woods System
Figure 7.14C presents the integration of study results for the Huron Woods system. The WHPAs
are long and thin, and are oriented southeastward toward the recharge areas of the Sauble
                                                             s
River around Maryville Lake. According to the Engineer’ Report, raw water bacteriological
quality is generally acceptable in the Huron Woods wells, however iron and hardness levels are
often high. The report also states that the recharge area for the well is not explicitly protected. A
low-density residential area with private septic systems, and vacant land, surround the wells.
This surrounding land use is not considered to be a source of risk of contamination to the
aquifer, as the aquifer is relatively deep and has some overburden protection.

The well record for Well #1 indicates that there is 21 m of clay with boulders overlying the
limestone/shale aquifer, which is located at a depth of 33.5 m. The well record for Well #2
indicates there is 25.6 m of clay with stones overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at
a depth of 33.5 m. At Well #3, there is 33.5 m of clay with stones overlying the limestone
aquifer, which is located at a depth of 35.3 m, and at Well #6, there is 6.4 m of sandy clay with
stones overlying the gravel overburden aquifer located directly beneath. Due to less clay
overlying the overburden aquifer at Well #6, it likely has less protection than the deeper bedrock
aquifer, which is overlain by more clay. Wells #4 and #5 were never developed for use, and if
these wells are not to be used in the future, they should be properly decommissioned according
to MOE guidelines, so that they will not become conduits of contamination to the underlying
aquifers.
                7.10.11 Foreman System
Figure 7.14D presents the integration of study results for the Foreman system. The WHPAs are
                                                                                       s
small and oriented southward toward Chesley Lake. According to the Engineer’ Report, raw
water bacteriological quality is generally poor in the Foreman well, with respect to total coliform.
However, iron, hardness and colour objectives have been exceeded in the past. The report also
states that the recharge area for the well is not explicitly protected. Agricultural land surrounds
the well, which is considered to be a source of risk of contamination to the aquifer, as the
overburden provides little protection to the aquifer. According to the MOE well record for the
well, the 71.6 m of overburden contains stony hardpan, gravely clay with boulders and hardpan
with boulders. These materials are not considered to have low permeabilities, and as a result
the overburden likely provides little protection to the underlying limestone aquifer, which is
                                                                                    s
located at a depth of 72.5 m. Recommendations were made in the Engineer’ report for the



7-14
                                                                            7. Integration of Study Results



municipality to obtain the land that recharges the well, in order to provide a protective zone for
the well.

For each of these systems, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that
the area surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility.
This is likely a result of the fact that the uppermost significant aquifer is located in the
overburden above the hardpan/clay protective layer. Though some protection may be afforded
deeper bedrock wells, the uppermost significant aquifer is not well protected. The risk of deeper
contamination is present in the form of abandoned private wells or “windows” in the aquitard,
which have not been properly decommissioned and sealed. In areas of medium susceptibility, it
is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
      7.11 Municipality of Brockton
Figures 7.15 and 7.8 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Municipality of Brockton, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                   s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by B.M. Ross and Associates (2000) for
the Chepstow Water Works and the Lake Rosalind Water Works, the susceptibility to
contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal systems is discussed and is
summarized below.
            7.11.1    Chepstow System
Figure 7.15 presents the integration of study results for the Chepstow system. The WHPAs are
long and thin, and are oriented southeastward toward the recharge areas of the Teeswater
                                                                             s
River between Greenock and Allens Creek. According to the Engineer’ Report, raw water
bacteriological quality is generally good in the Chepstow well. The well is located in the Powers
Subdivision, with residential lots to the north and south of the well. The Teeswater River is
located 200 to 300 m downgradient to the north of the well. The residential lots are serviced by
private septic systems and the closest septic system is 30 to 60 m south of the well. The well
record indicates the overburden thickness of clay and hardpan materials is 15.8 m, below which
is the limestone aquifer. The low permeability materials in the overburden likely act as an
aquitard to protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities.

The area within the 10-year WHPA is located in cash crop agricultural land (medium textured
mineral soils) with some low density beef operations and bush area. The area within the 25-year
WHPA is agricultural but more intensive, including confinement livestock that relies heavily on
cash crop operations.

On a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility. This is likely a result of the
fact that the uppermost significant aquifer is located in the overburden above the protective
aquitard. Though some protection may be afforded deeper bedrock wells, the uppermost
significant aquifer is not well protected. The risk of deeper contamination may come from
discontinuities in the aquitard above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is
recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.11.2    Lake Rosalind System
Figure 7.8 presents the integration of study results for the Lake Rosalind system. The WHPAs
for the Lake Rosalind well are oriented in a northwestard direction, toward the recharge area for
Marl Lakes. Land use northwest of Marl Lakes is low density agriculture, with some pasture land


                                                                                                     7-15
7. Integration of Study Results



and cash crops. The surface soils in the area are relatively coarse textured well-sorted glacial
outwash, which indicates fairly rapid infiltration and good internal drainage.

                              s
According to the Engineer’ Report, high levels of total coliform bacteria have been detected in
the past in raw water samples from the Lake Rosalind well. The well is located 120 m west of
Lake Rosalind, and there is agricultural land to the west of the well. The well supplies water to a
residential area with private septic systems. According to the record for Well #3, there is only
1.5 m of clay overlying the overburden sand aquifer, which is located at a depth of 13.4 m. Due
to the limited thickness of clay in the overburden, natural protection of the aquifer from surface
                                                      s
activities may be limited. In addition, the Engineer’ report states that the overburden aquifer is
relatively shallow and is likely under the influence of surface water.

On a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium susceptibility. This is likely a result of the higher
permeability material above the aquifer on a regional-scale providing potential conduits for
contaminants to impact the aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that
appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA
boundaries.
        7.12 Township of Huron-Kinloss
Figures 7.16 to 7.18 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Township of Huron-Kinloss, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                   s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by B.M. Ross and Associates (2001) for
the Ripley water system, the Lakeshore Area Water Works, the Lucknow Water Works and the
Whitechurch Water Works, the susceptibility to contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the
municipal systems is discussed and is summarized below.
                7.12.1            Village of Ripley System
Figure 7.16 presents the integration of study results for the Ripley system. The Ripley WHPAs
are long and narrow. They stretch through predominately cash crop agricultural operations on a
relatively fine textured surface material. In this area most of the productive land is tile drained
which will shunt any potential contaminants that move through the rooting zone out to the
surface drainage network. The fine textured soils managed with conservation tillage can have
well developed cracks, which can result in preferential flow from the surface to depths well
below the rooting zone. The presence of tile drains was not confirmed in this survey. In addition
to cash crops there is some low density livestock production (chiefly cattle with solid manure
handling systems. There do not appear to be any livestock handling facilities directly on top of
this capture zone.

                             s
According to the Engineer’ Report, there is no apparent history of adverse bacteriological
quality of the raw water supply from the Ripley wells. The report also states that land use
around wells is residential, commercial and institutional, and there are underground fuel tanks
for a municipal firehall and a service station located 15–20 m and 35 m from the wells,
respectively. According to the MOE water well record for Well #1, there is 12.1 m of clay and
hardpan overlying the limestone aquifer, which is located at a depth of 36.5 m. According to the
record for Well #2, there is 10.4 m of clay overlying the limestone aquifer, located at a depth of
41.4 m. Due to the low permeability of clay, it likely acts as an aquitard to protect both the
overburden and bedrock aquifers from surface activities. Due to the presence of low
permeability materials in the overburden and the depth of the aquifer, the bedrock aquifer is
probably protected from surface activities.



7-16
                                                                           7. Integration of Study Results



This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as low to moderate susceptibility. The low
conductivity overburden overlying the bedrock aquifer may be providing natural protection to the
aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal
planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.12.2    Huronville South System
Figure 7.17A presents the integration of study results for the Huronville South system. The
Huronville South wells are both located in a municipal park, where the adjacent land use is
residential, serviced by individual Class 4 sewage disposal systems. There is also a gravel pit
located approximately 300 m southeast of the wells and Lake Huron is approximately 150 m to
the west. The borehole log for Well #1 indicates a total thickness of clay and hardpan materials
of 33.5 m above the limestone aquifer located at 47.4 m depth. These low permeability
materials probably act as an aquitard to protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities. The
log for Well #2 could not be found, however due to the vicinity of the wells, Well #2 likely has
similar aquitard materials as encountered in Well #3.

The WHPA is long and narrow, and transects the Penetangore River south of Kincardine. The
2-year WHPA is located in the area mapped as coarse textured sandy loam (Fox soils), within
which the land use is residential. The remainder of the WHPA is located in rolling fine-textured
soils, which include depressional areas, bush, surface drainage channels. The principal land
use is cash crop agriculture with some areas devoted to livestock production, which use solid
manure handling systems.
            7.12.3    Murdock Glen Wells
Figure 7.17A presents the integration of study results for the Murdock Glen system. Land use in
vicinity of the wells is residential, serviced by individual Class 4 sewage disposal systems, and
agricultural lands are more than 250 m east of the wells. Lake Huron is approximately 200m to
the west of the wells. The borehole log for Well #1 indicates a total thickness of clay and
hardpan materials of 58.2 m above the limestone aquifer located at 60.2 m depth. The log for
Well #2 indicates a total thickness of clay of 37.1m above the limestone aquifer located at 61.1
m depth. These low permeability materials probably act as an aquitard to protect the bedrock
aquifer from surface activities.

The WHPAs are long and narrow and located in fine-textured soils of the Brookston series,
which are poorly drained soil with small areas of imperfectly drained soils. The 50-day WHPA is
in an area of bush with some summer residences below the escarpment. The remainder of the
WHPA is on level to depressional land, for which the principle land use is cash crop production.
In the 25-year WHPA, there is some low intensity livestock operations with solid manure
handling systems and pasture land.
            7.12.4    Blairs Grove Wells
Figure 7.17B presents the integration of study results for the Blairs Grove system. Land use in
vicinity of the Blairs Grove wells is residential, serviced by individual Class 4 sewage disposal
systems. The Pine River is located approximately 100 m to the east of the wells and further to
the south, being separated from the wells by open land. Lake Huron is approximately 350 m
west of the wells. The borehole log for Well #3 indicates a total thickness of clay and hardpan
materials of 43.5 m above the limestone aquifer located at 47.4 m depth. These low
permeability materials probably act as an aquitard to protect the bedrock aquifer from surface
activities. The log for Well #2 could not be found, however due to the vicinity of the wells, Well
#2 likely has similar aquitard materials as encountered in Well #3.


                                                                                                    7-17
7. Integration of Study Results




The WHPAs are long and narrow, and the 50-day and 2-year WHPAs are located in deposit of
coarse-textured outwash, mapped as Sullivan soil. Land use consists of cedar bush/swamp and
summer residences. The 25-year WHPA transects the escarpment through an area of
imperfectly drained fine-textured soil into an area of level poorly drained Brookston soil. Land
use is predominantly cash crops with a low intensity of livestock principally beef and dairy with
solid manure handling systems.
                7.12.5            Point Clark System
Figure 7.17B presents the integration of study results for the Point Clark system. Land use in
vicinity of the Point Clark wells is residential, serviced by individual Class 4 sewage disposal
systems. There are also agricultural lands approximately 250 m east of the wells and Lake
Huron is approximately 600m to the west. The borehole log for Well #1 indicates a total
thickness of clay of 53.6 m above the limestone aquifer located at 58.8 m depth. The log for
Well #2 indicates a total thickness of clay and hardpan materials of 37.1 m above the limestone
aquifer located at 54.2 m depth. These low permeability materials probably act as an aquitard to
protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities.

The WHPAs are long and narrow, and draws recharge from the agricultural area north of
highway 86 along Boyd Creek. The 50-day WHPA is located in an areas leading from the old
beach line up the escarpment to the level agricultural land consisting of cedar bush and some
summer recreational homes. Land use in the 10-year WHPA is cash crop agricultural land
(medium textured mineral soils) with some low density beef operations. There is also some
bush area within this part of the capture zone. Within the steady-state WHPA, land use is
agricultural but more intensive, and includes confinement livestock relying heavily on cash crop
operations.

For each of these well systems, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries to be designated as low to moderate susceptibility. The low
conductivity overburden overlying the bedrock aquifer may be providing natural protection to the
aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal
planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
                7.12.6            Lucknow System
Figure 7.18 presents the integration of study results for the Lucknow system. The Lucknow
WHPAs are large due to the high pumping rate, and it is bisected by Highway 86. Most of the
land is in agriculture, low intensity mixed farming with cash crops and beef operations. These
are located on gently rolling medium textured soils. They have mainly solid manure handling
systems. Part of the capture zone is quite rolling with significant areas of swamp and
depressional recharge. The soils in this area are formed on highly variable coarse textured
materials. The only land use of note was two areas of aggregate extraction within the 2 year
                                          s
travel zone. According to the Engineer’ Report, due to the depth of the bedrock aquifer, the
presence of thick layers of aquitard materials, and a history of good microbiological water
quality, Lucknow Wells #4 and #5 appear to be adequately protected. Well #4 is located in a
community park and adjacent land use is residential, probably serviced by municipal sanitary
sewers. Well #5 is located in a residential area, probably serviced by municipal sanitary sewers,
and is within 100 m of agricultural lands to the south and east. The borehole log for Well #4
indicates a 16.2 m thickness of clay and hardpan materials above the limestone aquifer located
at 53.3 m depth. The log for Well #5 indicates a 31 m thickness of clay and hardpan materials
above the aquifer located at 47.5 m depth. These low permeability materials probably act as an
aquitard to protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities.


7-18
                                                                            7. Integration of Study Results




However, on a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility. This is
likely a result of the fact that the uppermost significant aquifer is located in the overburden
above the protective aquitard. Though some protection may be afforded deeper bedrock wells,
the uppermost significant aquifer is not well protected. The risk of deeper contamination may
come from discontinuities in the aquitard above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of medium
susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to
restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.12.7    Whitechurch System
Figure 7.18 presents the integration of study results for the Whitechurch system. The WHPAs
are small and narrow, and land use is dominated by low density mixed livestock (beef with solid
manure handling systems) and cash crops. Other parts of the WHPAs are occupied by swamp
                                         s
and bush. According to the Engineer’ Report, due to the proximity of septic systems and
agricultural activities and some history of adverse microbiological water quality to the
Whitechurch well, “   there is some potential for microbiological contamination at the wellhead” .
The well is located behind a community centre and the adjacent land use is residential,
commercial and agricultural. Private sewer systems are also used in the area and the septic
tank for the community centre is approximately 10 m from well. However, due to the presence of
significant clay in the overburden and a history of good bacteriological quality of the raw water,
the report concluded that the aquifer is a secure groundwater supply. The well log indicates a 24
m thickness of clay and hardpan materials above the limestone aquifer located at a depth of
43.3 m to 55.2 m. These low permeability materials probably act as an aquitard to protect the
bedrock aquifer from surface activities.

Similar to the Lucknow system, the regional Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries is designated as medium susceptibility. This is likely a result
of the fact that the uppermost significant aquifer is located in the overburden above the
protective aquitard. Though some protection may be afforded deeper bedrock wells, the
uppermost significant aquifer is not well protected. The risk of deeper contamination may come
from discontinuities in the aquitard above the bedrock aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility,
it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict
development within WHPA boundaries.
      7.13 Municipality of South Bruce
Figures 7.19 and 7.20 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Municipality of South Bruce, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                      s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by Maitland Engineering (2001) for the
Mildmay Water System and the Teeswater Water System, the susceptibility to contamination of
the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal systems is discussed and is summarized below.
            7.13.1    Mildmay Water System
Figure 7.19 presents the integration of study results for the MIldmay system. The WHPAs are
large and are oriented southward toward the recharge areas between the Teeswater River and
                                         s
Otter Creek. According to the Engineer’ Report, Otter Creek is located 20 m downgradient
(northeast) of the Mildmay wells. Land use upgradient of the wells is mainly residential serviced
by municipal sewers, and a small chicken farm (no outside manure storage). Farther away from
the well, the WHPA includes low density agricultural operations with solid manure handling
systems, swamp, reforestation and bush. The soils are mainly loam to silt loam with areas of
organic deposits. The borehole log for Well #1 indicates a total thickness of clay and silt of 12.8


                                                                                                     7-19
7. Integration of Study Results



m located above the limestone aquifer located at 33.5 m depth. The log for Well #2 indicates a
total thickness of clay and silty clay of 11.9 m located above the limestone aquifer located at
32.6 m depth. These low permeability materials likely act as an aquitard to protect the bedrock
aquifer from surface activities.

On a regional-scale, the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping shows that the area surrounding the
WHPA boundaries are designated as medium susceptibility. This is likely a result of the higher
permeability material above the aquifer on a regional-scale providing potential conduits for
contaminants to impact the aquifer. In areas of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that
appropriate municipal planning measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA
boundaries.
                7.13.2            Teeswater Water System
Figure 7.20 presents the integration of study results for the Teeswater system. According to the
           s
Engineer’ Report, The Teeswater River is located 30 m downgradient to the north of Teeswater
well. The land upgradient from the wells is mainly residential serviced by private septic systems,
and County Road 16 (Elora Street). The log for the well indicates a total thickness of clay and
silt of 3.4 m above the limestone aquifer located at 4.0 m depth. This limited thickness of low
permeability materials likely provides minimal protection to the shallow bedrock aquifer
underlying it. However, the well is a flowing artesian well of more than 50 L/s, therefore the
aquifer is strongly confined, indicating a confining layer exists which likely protects to the aquifer
from surface activities. This confining layer may consist of the clay and silt layer as well as the
upper limestone having low permeability. Also the confined conditions case a strong upward
gradient, which also limits the downward flow of contaminants.

The area within the 50-day WHPA is within the village and includes a feed mill, a fertilizer
blending plant and water purifying plant for the local creamery. Land use within the 2-year
WHPA is mainly low intensity agriculture, and includes the former Teeswater landfill, which was
closed more than 30 years ago. Land use in the 10-year and 25-year WHPAs is agriculture,
predominantly low density beef production with solid manure handling systems, and includes a
fairly large hog operation and some larger cattle operations.

This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as medium to high susceptibility. This is
likely a result of the limited thickness of overburden overlying the bedrock aquifer. In areas of
medium susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be
developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
        7.14 Municipality of Kincardine
Figures 7.21 and 7.22 present the overlays described above for the municipal wells in the
Municipality of Kincardine, along with other base mapping features, which are discussed in the
                                   s
following sections. In the Engineer’ Reports completed by B.M. Ross and Associates (2001) for
each of the municipal well systems the Municipality of Kincardine, the susceptibility to
contamination of the aquifers in the vicinity of the municipal systems is discussed and is
summarized below.
                7.14.1            Tiverton Well Supply
Figure 7.21A presents the integration of study results for the Tiverton system. According to the
          s
Engineer’ Report for the Tiverton system, land use in the vicinity of the Dent Well is
agricultural, and the Briar Hill Well is surrounded by residential, agricultural and a ravine. There
are also municipal sanitary sewers in the vicinity of each well. The soils near the wells are


7-20
                                                                           7. Integration of Study Results



mapped as coarse-textured soils (Berrien sandy loam), while the soils farther away from the
wells are mapped as lacustrine, silt loam (Elderslie soil). The borehole log for Dent Well
indicates a layer of clay and hardpan materials 33 m thick above the limestone aquifer; the log
for Briar Hill Well indicates a layer of clay and hardpan materials 9.4 m thick. The report states
that these low permeability materials likely protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities.

This is corroborated by the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, which shows that the area
surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as low susceptibility. The low conductivity
overburden overlying the bedrock aquifer may be providing natural protection to the aquifer. In
areas of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning
measures be developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
            7.14.2    Kinhuron Well Supply
Figure 7.21B presents the integration of study results for the Kinhuron system. The WHPA is
located in an area mapped as fine-textured soils. The 2-year WHPA is located in a swampy
area with mixed cedar and other species. The 10-year WHPA is located on level crop land with
small depressional swamp areas. Land use is primarily cattle and cash crop operations, in an
                                                                                       s
area of rolling topography with a surface drainage channel. According to the Engineer’ Report,
land use around the Kinhuron well is agricultural and residential, where residences use private
sewer systems (Class 4). The nearest tile field is approximately 100 m from the well. The
borehole log for the well indicates a 10 m thick layer of hardpan and a 32 m thick layer of rock
above the limestone aquifer. The report states that these low permeability materials likely to
                                                      as
protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities, “ demonstrated by the low concentrations
of nitrate, nitrite and THM in the treated water”.
            7.14.3    Craig-Eskrick Well Supply
Figure 7.21B presents the integration of study results for the Craig-Eskrick system. The WHPAs
are long and narrow, and located in an area which trends from coarse-textured soils near the
wells to fine-textured soils away from the wells. Land use in the 2-year WHPA is cedar bush.
The 10-year WHPA passes through the Kincardine Airport and under Highway 21, and
terminates in an area of cash crop land use with patches of bush. According to the Engineer’    s
Report, land use in vicinity of the Craig-Eskrick well is agricultural and residential, where
residences use private sewer systems (Class 4). The nearest tile field is approximately 25 m
from well. The borehole log for the well indicates a layer of clay and hardpan materials 28 m
thick above the limestone aquifer. The report states that these low permeability materials likely
                                                      as
protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities, “ demonstrated by the low concentrations
of nitrate, nitrite and THM in the treated water”.
            7.14.4    Lake Huron Highlands Well Supply
Figure 7.21B presents the integration of study results for the Lake Huron Highlands system. The
WHPAs are located in an area mapped as fine-textured soils. The 2-year WHPA is located in a
swampy area with mixed cedar and other species. The 10-year WHPA is located on rougher
topography dissected by surface drainage channels. The land use is roughland pasture, which
trends into areas of mix of cash crop and livestock with solid manure handling systems.
                             s
According to the Engineer’ Report, land use in vicinity of the Lake Huron Highlands wells is
agricultural and residential, where residences use private sewer systems (Class 4). The nearest
tile field is approximately 30 m from well. The borehole log for Well #1 indicates a layer of
hardpan materials 12.8 m thick above the limestone aquifer, and the log for well #2 indicates a
layer of shale 20 m thick above the limestone aquifer. The report states that these low
permeability materials likely protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities, “         as
demonstrated by the low concentrations of nitrate, nitrite and THM in the treated water”.


                                                                                                    7-21
7. Integration of Study Results



                7.14.5            Port Head Estates Well Supply
Figure 7.21B presents the integration of study results for the Port Head Estates system. The
WHPAs are long and narrow, and located in an area of low intensity pasture land, with some
scrub bush, mixed hardwood and conifer forest. Directly upgradient of the wellhead is a gravel
extraction operation. The 10-year WHPA is located on the east side of Highway 21, and
                                                                              s
terminates in an area with sparse beef productions.According to the Engineer’ Report, land use
in vicinity of the Port Head Estates well is agricultural and residential, where residences use
private sewer systems (Class 4). The nearest tile field is approximately 30 m from well. The
borehole log for the well indicates a layer of clay and hardpan materials 13.3 m thick above the
limestone aquifer. The report states that these low permeability materials likely protect the
                                           as
bedrock aquifer from surface activities, “ demonstrated by the low concentrations of nitrate,
nitrite and THM in the treated water” .
                7.14.6            Underwood Well Supply
Figure 7.22A presents the integration of study results for the Underwood system. According to
              s
the Engineer’ Report, land use in vicinity of the Underwood well is commercial and institutional.
There are also municipal sanitary sewers in the area. However, farther upgradient from the well
the land use consists of pasture and cropland, which includes a livestock facility with a solid
manure handling system. The soils in the area are mapped as silty clay (Chesley and Elderslie
soils). The log for the well indicates a layer of clay and hardpan materials 44 m thick above the
limestone aquifer. The report states that these low permeability materials likely protect the
bedrock aquifer from surface activities.
                7.14.7            Scott Point Well Supply
Figure 7.22A presents the integration of study results for the Scott Point system. According to
              s
the Engineer’ Report, land use in vicinity of the Scott Point well is residential, where residences
use private sewer systems (Class 4). Farther away from the well, land use is mainly low
intensity pasture. The nearest tile field is approximately 25 m from well. The borehole log for the
well indicates a layer of clay and shale 25 m thick above the aquifer. The report states that
these low permeability materials likely protect the bedrock aquifer from surface activities.
However, the area within the WHPAs is mapped as a medium-textured outwash material
(Brisbane soil).

However, for each of these 6 well systems (Kinhuron, Craig-Eskrick, Lake Huron Highlands,
Port Head Estates, Scott Point and Underwood), the Intrinsic Susceptibility mapping, on a
regional-scale, shows that the area surrounding the WHPA boundaries are designated as
medium to high susceptibility. This is likely a result of the fact that the uppermost significant
aquifer is located in the overburden above the hardpan/clay protective layer. Though some
protection may be afforded deeper bedrock wells, the uppermost significant aquifer is not well
protected. The risk of deeper contamination is present in the form of abandoned private wells or
“windows” in the aquitard, which have not been properly decommissioned and sealed. In areas
of medium susceptibility, it is recommended that appropriate municipal planning measures be
developed to restrict development within WHPA boundaries.
        7.15 Summary
After completing the MODFLOW modeling, the WHPA results were integrated with the results of
the Contaminant Sources Inventory and the Intrinsic Susceptibility Analysis. The WHPAs for
each municipal well, from Section 6, show the area from which the wells obtain their water
supply; the Intrinsic Susceptibility from Section 3 shows the vulnerability of the uppermost
significant aquifer surrounding the wellfield; and, the Contaminant Sources from Section 5


7-22
                                                                           7. Integration of Study Results



present one potential risk of contaminating the groundwater entering the wells. Map were
generated of each steady state capture zone showing the location of the WHPA and the location
of any potential contaminant sources, along with the regional road that transect the capture
zone. Subsequently, each county road was driven as part of a “      windscreen” survey of the
WHPAs to identify any potential contaminant sources that were not part of the regional
Contaminant Sources Inventory.

The description of the susceptibility of each municipal well to contamination, from the Engineer’s
Report for each wellfield, was combined with the WHPA boundaries and the Intrinsic
Susceptibility results. For each wellfield, a map was developed to include these components of
groundwater protection, and a discussion was provided to integrate the vulnerability of the
wellfields and the extent of the recharge areas for the wells (WHPAs). Many of the municipal
wellfield are located in areas of medium to high susceptibility. In some cases it is due to a lack
of low permeability overburden above the bedrock aquifer. In other cases it is due to thicker
units of high permeability overburden material, which does not provide adequate protection for
the aquifer. However, regardless of the reason, areas of high and medium intrinsic susceptibility
found within WHPA boundaries are very sensitive zones from a groundwater protection
perspective, and should be addressed during the development of provisions to implement
groundwater protection.




                                                                                                    7-23
                                                                                 8. Public Consultation




8     Public Consultation
      8.1   Methodology
To transfer study information to the public and solicit their input, a variety of different public
consultation strategies were used. At the onset of the study it was understood that public
involvement and subsequent buy-in to the importance of the Groundwater Study and its findings
would be beneficial. A more environmentally aware public that appreciates the need to protect
their groundwater resource will be more likely to endorse and support future groundwater
protection strategies. Information from members of the community also provided insight about
specific water resource issues that were of concern to them. This information was used during
the development of the groundwater protection strategy and helped to focus the study on local
concerns and issues.

To consult the public and make study results available to local stakeholders, the following
specific strategies were implemented throughout the duration of the project:
• News releases to local newspaper and media outlets about groundwater issues in Grey and
   Bruce Counties and details related to the project progression;
• Two (2) public meetings timed to present preliminary results from the study the final study
   results; and,
• Development of a project website to transfer project information to the public and to convey
   study progress and final results (www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca).

The following paragraphs provide details about the different public consultation strategies used
during the study and their results.
      8.2   Media News Releases
During the study a series of Press Releases were issued to local media outlets. These media
outlets included local radio stations, newspapers and television stations. Media releases provide
a cost-effective means of presenting study information in a venue that is accessible by many
local residents. Each release included details regarding study progress, upcoming public
meetings, and general groundwater facts pertinent to Grey and Bruce Counties. The releases
also included contact information ensuring that project personnel were available to respond to
specific project related questions.

An archive of media news releases is stored on the project website, which can be found at
(http://www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca/results.htm), and in Appendix G.
      8.3   Public Meetings
To directly interact with the public two (2) public open houses were incorporated into the public
consultation strategy. Drawing from discussions with the Project Steering Committee, a public
meeting was arranged to include a presentation on study objectives and progress, along with a
question and answer period, for the first meeting set.

The meeting was conducted on Tuesday August 27, 2002 in the Chesley Community Centre
(129 4th Avenue Southeast, Chesley, ON). There were two (2) presentations, one at 3:00 p.m.,
and one at 7:00 p.m. Members of the Steering Committee and the Consulting Team were
present to answer question related to the Groundwater Study. In total, more than 50 people
interacted with the Project Team and Steering Committee. The meetings were successful at
transferring study information to the public. All information presented at the public meetings was



                                                                                                   8-1
8. Public Consultation



incorporated into the project website, in recognition that every resident in the study area would
not be able to attend the meetings. Furthermore, the website was promoted as a tool that
residents could use during the study to peruse study progress, and at the conclusion of the
study the final report and mapping would be available for the public to review.

The second meeting was scheduled to present the study conclusions and recommendations. It
was conducted on February 13, 2003 in the Chesley Community Centre under the same format
as the first meeting. Information presented at the second meeting was added to the website to
help ensure the results were accessible to everyone.
        8.4     Study Website (www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca)
At the beginning of the study a website was developed to convey the purpose of the project and
to bolster public awareness about groundwater resource issues. As the study progressed, the
website was updated. Updates were completed periodically, depending on the completion of
specific study milestones.

Throughout the study the website has been used to distribute information to residents of the
study area, and to bordering and nearby counties such as Huron, Perth, Wellington, Dufferin
and Simcoe Counties. Two of these counties have already conducted similar groundwater
studies, and three are in the process of completing groundwater studies concurrently with the
Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study.

The website will exist after the study has been completed, and the final report will reside on the
website in Adobe (*.PDF) format for interested parties to access. Web links to the study website
have been added to the Grey and Bruce County websites, and to the SVCA and GSCA
websites to promote its existence.
        8.5     Summary
Public consultation aspects of the study were designed to provide an understanding of public
opinion on the issues related to groundwater protection for Grey and Bruce Counties, and to
transfer study related information to residents of the study area and surrounding counties. The
overall process was designed to provide a forum for community education and awareness and
to provide a foundation for future related endeavors. Public consultation included a review of
similar outreaches conducted within or near the county, public meetings, and press releases. As
part of public consultation a website was developed to convey groundwater resource related
information and to transfer information about the progress of the study to interested
stakeholders.




8-2
                                                                9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




9     Groundwater Protection Management Strategy
      9.1   Introduction
Humans can live for a month without food, but will die in less than a week without water (de
Villiers, 1999). Water is continually being recycled throughout the hydrosphere. Water falls as
rain or snow and replenishes the lakes, rivers, and groundwater supplies. Water is removed
from plant matter (transpiration) and surface water bodies (evaporation), to be returned once
again as precipitation. During any part of this hydrologic cycle, water is susceptible to the impact
of human activities. As urban populations continue to grow, the need for clean and safe water
supplies also grows.

Municipalities have recognized the vulnerability of water resources that supply both individual
and municipal wells within their communities. Based on provincial protocols, studies were
initiated across Ontario to characterize regional aquifers, to assess their intrinsic susceptibility to
contamination, to inventory contaminant sources, and to define wellhead protection areas
(WHPAs). With this information, municipalities and planning authorities can design a source
protection strategy for drinking water. Such strategies are based on the principle that measures
to prevent contamination are less expensive than measures to treat contaminated water and
remediate water supplies, and are strongly favoured by the public (O’   Connor, 2002).

The protection of water quality and quantity depends on the collective actions of individuals,
private industry, government and other agencies. Rural property owners are responsible for
maintaining their own well and septic tanks. Municipalities are responsible for the provision and
maintenance of safe drinking water supplies in urban areas, and for proper sewage collection
and treatment. Conservation Authorities play an important role in water conservation through
watershed protection and management. Private industry is intrinsically responsible for best
management practices in the utilization of water for the goods and services they provide. The
farm industry in particular, has an interest in securing an adequate supply of water for livestock
and crop watering.

Table 9.1 below lists common issues that can be addressed during the development of
provisions to implement groundwater protection. This list is not intended to be complete, but is
intended to highlight the variety of potential threats to the health of groundwater systems. This
table also provides some insight into the policies, legislation, and guidelines that exist, which
address specific issues regarding source protection, and whether any incentive programs
currently exist to aid in these initiatives. The issues are grouped into 3 categories:

• groundwater susceptibility;
• contamination threat; and,
• data availability and jurisdictional issues.

As noted in Table 9.1, there are many policies and incentive programs that are already in-place
to help protect groundwater resources. In concert with these existing initiatives, Table 9.2
outlines a number of tools that the Counties or a Conservation Authority can apply to further
enhance groundwater protection. A brief discussion about each tool is provided below the table.




                                                                                                          9-1
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



Table 9.1:    SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
                    Issue                                                         Policy/         Incentive
                                                     Implication
                                                                                Legislation       Programs
       Improperly Constructed and                                              MOE Reg.         Healthy
 1                                         Conduit to aquifers
       Decommissioned Wells                                                    903              Futures
 2     Well Inspection                     Conduit to aquifers
 3     Karstic Sinkholes                   Conduit to aquifers
 4     Sewage Sludge Spreading             Non-point source of nutrients       MOE
 5     Nutrient Storage                    Point source of nutrients                            OFA
 6     Nutrient Loading                    Non-point source of nutrients                        Farm Plans
 7     Road Salting                        Non-point source of chloride
                                                                               MOE
                                                                                                Local BMP’ s
 8     Fuel/Chemical Storage               Point source of chemicals           Environmental
                                                                                                and incentives
                                                                               Protection Act
 9     Absence of Monitoring Data          Difficult to assess water quality
       Lack of Household                   Potential point source of
 10
       Hazardous Waste Pickup              chemical pollution
                                           Disorganized data that is not
 11    Data Management
                                           used
       Poor Communication                  Disorganized data and difficulty
 12
       Between Government Levels           implementing programs

Table 9.2:    GROUNDWATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT TOOLS
                                                            Applicability                Relative      Relative
                        Tool
                                                                                          Value         Cost
 1     Education                                  All Issues                            Medium         Low
 2     Best Management Practices                  Contamination threat issues           Medium         Low
                                                  Contamination threat and
 3     Land Acquisition                                                                 High           High
                                                  susceptibility issues
 4     Conservation Easements                     Contamination threat issues           Medium         Medium
 5     Incentive Programs                         Contamination threat issues           High           High
 6     Municipal Site Leadership                  Contamination threat issues           Medium         Medium
                                                  Contamination threat and data
 7     Integrated Information Management                                                Medium         High
                                                  management issues
                                                  Contamination threat and data
 8     Water Quality Monitoring                                                         Medium         High
                                                  management issues
 9     Municipal Sewer By-Law                     Contamination threat issues           Medium         Medium
 10    Official Plan Amendments                   Contamination threat issues           High           High
 11    Spills Contingency Plan                    Contamination threat issues           Medium         Low

Education
Many different means of communicating messages to promote awareness and responsible
stewardship of groundwater resources are available. Different education-oriented initiatives
include:

• Groundwater information papers that can be distributed by mail with other county or local
  municipal mailings (taxes, water bills);
• Supplemental education aides can be provided to teachers throughout the Counties, with a
  fact sheet related to the reliance on groundwater within the Counties. Groundwater can be
  incorporated into the Ontario curriculum as part of the following Science and Technology



9-2
                                                            9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




    Units: Air and Water in the Environment, Grade 2; Soils in the Environment, Grade 3; Rocks,
    Minerals, and Erosion, Grade 4; Water Systems; Grade 8
    (www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/scientec/scientec.html);
•               s
    A Children’ Groundwater Festival, similar to those conducted in Waterloo Region and
    Oxford County, can be initiated to increase groundwater awareness (www.cwec.ca);
•   The Grey Bruce Clean Water Festival, which was started in 2001 and usually runs until
    September of each year is Chesley, focuses on Grade 4 students in all schools in Grey and
    Bruce Counties (www. waterfestival.ca);
•   In some jurisdictions, signs labeled “  Attention Groundwater Protection Area” or “You are
    Entering a Well Head Protection Area” have been constructed to promote awareness. The
    signs typically include a number to call in the event of a contaminant spill; and,
•   A website, similar to the project website (www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca) can be
    developed to provide general groundwater information and specific details about how
    groundwater is utilized within the counties.

Best Management Practices
Utilizing best management practices (BMPs) can greatly reduce the risk that different actions
have on groundwater resources. Providing information about BMPs in sensitive areas such as
WHPAs can help protect groundwater resources.

Land Acquisition
Acquiring land in a highly sensitive area should provide complete control over the land use
practices within the area. In many cases this option is not feasible due to costs and other
factors. Land can be acquired prior to the development of a new water supply, or future water
supplies can be developed in areas where land is owned by the municipality.

Conservation Easements
A conservation easement is a voluntary agreement between a landowner and a conservation
body to “conserve, maintain, restore or enhance” the natural features of a property by placing
conditions on its management. The easement is a legal document that is registered on the title
of the property, and binds the present owner and all future owners to the terms of the
agreement. A conservation easement does not give the easement holder title to the property.

For landowners, a conservation easement is a way to protect the special attributes of their
property by placing a permanent development restriction on the property, while retaining
ownership. This tool has been available since 1995, when the Conservation Lands Act was
revised to allow private landowners to enter into conservation easement with charitable
conservation organization, municipal councils, native bands and conservation authorities. Prior
to this, landowners could only enter into conservation easements with the Crown and its
agencies.

Incentive Programs
Incentive programs can be used to encourage specific actions throughout the Counties or within
specific sensitive areas such as WHPAs. A variety of incentive programs currently exist, such as
those administered by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Healthy Futures). Additional
incentives, focused in higher risk areas, can be used to properly decommission abandoned
boreholes, upgrade existing chemical storage, properly maintain septic systems, compensate
for loss of land use or productivity, and provide hazardous waste disposal.




                                                                                                      9-3
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



Municipal Site Leadership
By adopting an active role and implementing BMPs at municipal sites, the Counties and their
member municipalities will have much more credibility when asking other land users to adopt
similar policies. In many instances, public lands reside in the most sensitive areas from WHPA
perspectives. An audit of each well house and the area around the well, and the subsequent
removal of potential contaminant sources such as paints, oils, fuels, lawn chemicals, and other
contaminants can be completed.

Integrated Information Management
An information management system is essential to incorporate all available information during
decision-making. A relational database linked to a GIS can bring together water quality, Permits
To Take Water, WHPAs, groundwater vulnerability, land uses, potential and known contaminant
sources. Information can also be implemented in a web application for distribution to county
residents.

Water Quality Monitoring
The development of “    sentinel wells” to provide water quality monitoring that could detect
adverse water quality conditions upgradient of the production wells provides a warning system
of potential well contamination. Sentinel wells are typically located a distance, in groundwater
time-of-travel, of 2 to 5 years up gradient of the production well to provide opportunity to
investigate and mitigate water quality concerns. Threshold levels, with associated action plans
are important facets of this groundwater management tool.

Municipal Sewer By-Law
A sewer by-law provides a means to control the substances that are discharged to the sewer.
Sewers can leak and be a source of contamination to groundwater. Furthermore, as part of the
by-law, inspections could be carried out to help ensure suitable chemical storage. An inventory
of chemical storage provides additional information that can be used to promote BMPs.

Official Plan Amendments
Official Plan amendments can address specific land uses and can define different sensitive
groundwater zones. These zones can include WHPAs and areas of high intrinsic susceptibility.
Restrictions, or the requirement of site-specific information prior to the approval of specific land
uses, provide a direct means of controlling land uses in sensitive areas.

Spill Contingency Plan
A spill contingency plan promotes quick and deliberate responses to contaminant spills. A spill
contingency plan typically includes information about specific responsibilities of individuals and
organizations and contact numbers needed in the event of a spill.
       9.2    Groundwater Protection Strategy Approach
A Groundwater Protection Strategy is a program of risk reduction to sustain the groundwater
resource, both as a source of drinking water supplies and an integral component of the
ecosystem. The strategy can incorporate a number of different tools. These tools may include a
combination of land use policies, regulatory controls, best management practices, public
education, monitoring, land acquisition, and spills contingency planning.

Policies, such as those in a municipal Official Plan, serve to identify the public interest in water
quality and quantity. An Official Plan may establish goals, set objectives for water protection
(aquifer and well head protection), and provide the framework for land use development and



9-4
                                                             9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




implementation measures. The policies may also provide the rationale for the use of other
planning tools such as zoning and site plan control. These are regulatory mechanisms that may
be used to control development on a lot-by-lot basis, or an area-wide basis. Planning
applications, such as development or land use changes, largely drive the implementation
process.

Many tools are not retroactive and they do not enable a municipality to rectify a pollution
problem by closing down an operation or forcing the relocation of an existing land use that may
have the potential to contaminate an aquifer.

Best management practices may apply to a homeowner in the use and storage of solvents,
pesticides, and the disposal of household hazardous wastes. For the agricultural industry it may
include measures such as stream buffering from cattle grazing and the care with which manure
and other fertilizers are applied.

The municipality may also use other statutes to complement the land use controls under the
Planning Act. The Nutrient Management Act (NMA, 2001), and the associated regulations, for
example, set out the requirements for the preparation of nutrient management plans and the
control of intensive livestock operations. The NMA requires all farm operations to have a
nutrient management plan. This ensures that all nutrients on the farm (from livestock, biosolids,
legume fixation and chemical fertilizers) are used with the best possible efficiency for crop
production. This program also deals with various proximity hazards by requiring setbacks in
nutrient applications from the surface drainage network and wells.

Raising public awareness, through public educational programs, can have a major impact on
groundwater protection and may be more important than enforcement measures. It is through
the voluntary actions and practices of people on a day-by-day basis that will help protect water
resources (i.e. proper use, storage and disposal of fuels, solvents, and pesticides, regular water
well maintenance, installation of water saving plumbing fixtures). Municipalities can work
towards developing a ‘   water ethic’ in their communities. This means instilling a collective
awareness, responsibility, and commitment to protect water on an ongoing basis.

The approach to developing a protection strategy is based on a number of assumptions:

• Water is the single most important resource for a healthy community and, as a result, a
  preventative or proactive approach is more appropriate than a reactive approach (i.e.
  prevent contamination as opposed to cleaning it up);
• Water is not confined by political boundaries;
• While the focus is on groundwater protection, the linkage to surface water resources (i.e.
  water cycle) necessitates a broad-based approach;
• Existing risks can be reduced through redevelopment or relocation of land uses that may
  threaten water quality;
• Water quantity (well yields) will remain constant;
• Impacts can be monitored through development decisions and the collection of data and
  that the strategy will be adjusted, where necessary; and,
• A source protection strategy is a risk management tool that will not provide an absolute
  solution, but rather, will minimize potential negative impacts over the short and long term.




                                                                                                       9-5
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



       9.3    Experiences in Other Jurisdictions
Source protection is not new in Ontario or other jurisdictions across North America.
Groundwater protection programs are becoming more common in communities across North
America due to the increased impetus to provide and protect clean drinking water. Many
municipalities that rely on groundwater are taking proactive measures to safeguard the quality of
their water from past, present, and future land uses.
              9.3.1 Oak Ridges Moraine (Ontario)
The Regional Municipalities of Durham, Peel, and York, in co-ordination with the Province of
Ontario, developed a conservation plan for the Oak Ridges Moraine that includes a
management strategy for groundwater. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001), and
the associated Ontario Regulation complement the strategy by restricting land uses in WHPAs
and in areas of high aquifer vulnerability. The groundwater management strategy identified ‘    data
collection and management, data analysis and policy development and implementation’as three
broad action areas. The regulation prohibits the storage of petroleum products, pesticides,
inorganic fertilizers, road salt, hazardous or liquid industrial wastes, severely toxic contaminants
(O.R. 347), animal manure in wellhead protection areas along with waste disposal sites, snow
dumps, animal agriculture and the storage of agricultural equipment. Similar restrictions on land
use activities apply to areas of high aquifer vulnerability.
              9.3.2 New Brunswick
New Brunswick enacted the Wellfield Protected Area Regulation under the Clean Water Act as
the basis for establishing ‘   Protection Areas’ around municipal wellfields. Protection areas
(Zones A, B and C) are based on groundwater travel times of 100 to 250-days, 250-days to 5-
years and 5 to 25-years. Different land uses are restricted within each protection area. Within
Zone A, prohibited uses/activities include transformer substations, storage of liquid petroleum
products, pesticides, fertilizers, livestock grazing or stabling, liquid or dry animal manure
composting. Residential uses are permitted but they must be serviced. Existing commercial,
industrial and institutional buildings are permitted but no expansions are allowed to any
residential or non-residential uses.

In Zones B and C, groundwater may be extracted from the aquifer (quantity limited) by wells that
are not municipal wells. Restrictions are relaxed on uses prohibited in Zone A, when they are
located in Zones B and C (i.e. liquid manure may be stored, but in a clay lined pit; livestock may
be grazed if fenced; limited quantities of petroleum products may be stored; pesticide use is
                          s
permitted to manufacturer’ specifications).

In Zone C larger quantities of chemicals may be stored, and fertilizers may be applied. New
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings may be constructed if communally serviced or
where the number of residents and employees serviced by septic tanks does not exceed 25/ha.
Drainage patterns for wetland areas cannot be modified without conducting an impact study on
the hydrology and hydrogeology. The province has parallel restrictions to protect sensitive
aquifer areas. Of interest is a maximum floor area size limit of 185 m2 for a single detached
dwelling and a prohibition against any conversion of a single to a multiple unit in the highest
sensitivity area. In this area, fertilizer application is limited to inorganic applications.
              9.3.3 Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Ontario)
The Region of Waterloo, where all communities and the rural areas are primarily dependant on
groundwater for their water supply source, adopted Official Plan Amendment #12 to their Official
9-6
                                                                9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




Plan. This amendment, now approved, provides for wellhead protection through land use
                     sensitivity areas’ which correspond to the time-of-travel within each of the
restrictions in four ‘                ,
zones. Certain (Category A) uses are prohibited in all four sensitivity areas (i.e. lagoons, land fill
sites, disposal of abattoir and rendering wastes, auto wrecking, and salvage yards). An
extensive list of uses in Categories B and C are prohibited in Wellhead Protection Sensitivity
Areas 1, 2 and 3. Local municipalities are not permitted to redesignate land in local Official
Plans for any of the uses prohibited in the respective sensitivity areas.
            9.3.4 Oxford County (Ontario)
An approach similar to that adopted in the Region Municipality of Waterloo has been taken in
Oxford County as part of the current update of the County Official Plan. However, the scope of
uses differs somewhat from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Activities banned in WHPA’  s
include earthen manure storage facilities, the bulk storage of tires, the refining of petroleum
products, the bulk storage of chemicals or hazardous substances (except on-farm storage), the
warehousing of cleaning products, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, and the
storage/warehousing of bulk storage of petroleum products.

Underground storage tanks, sumps such as dry wells and machine pits and automotive repair
pits would not be permitted in the two highest sensitivity rankings, while above ground storage
with secondary containment would be permitted. New development on wells and septic tanks
would not be permitted in a WHPA, without meeting certain performance requirements including
a disclosure report identifying the scope of the use, a detailed hydrogeological study with an
associated mitigative plan, and a spill and contingency plan. Intensive livestock operations,
manure storage and application are not permitted in a sensitivity 2 or 3 WHPA.
            9.3.5 Alberta, Newfoundland & Labrador, Prince Edward Island
Wellhead protection measures in some other provinces, such as Alberta, Newfoundland &
Labrador, and Prince Edward Island, are based on minimum separation distances as opposed
to land use restrictions. Distances vary for storage of petroleum tanks (15 to 50 m); septic tanks
(10 to 16 m); and sewage lagoons (100 m).
            9.3.6 Nova Scotia
In Nova Scotia, the Water Act has been used as the basis for establishing ‘       Protected Water
Areas’(PWA), which are equivalent to a WHPA, tailored to individual communities. A three-zone
time-of-travel system is used for a PWA. For example, within a PWA, open fires are not
permitted (April to October). Restrictions on forestry operations apply on the quantity of timber
removed and setbacks of the operation. Chemical pest control products are prohibited in Zone 1
and aerial spraying is barred within a 150 m radius of a wellhead. Landfill and animal waste
disposal is prohibited. The use of any vehicle, except a municipal service vehicle, is prohibited
in Zone 1. Peat, gravel, rock and mineral extraction, and agricultural operations are prohibited in
Zone 1. Intensive livestock operations in Zones 2 and 3 are permitted where they comply with
the Provincial animal manure spreading guidelines and where the nitrogen level for all fertilizer
applications does not exceed a prescribed standard.
            9.3.7 The United States
Source protection in the United States (US) falls under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
(1986), which sets the regulatory and management framework for the activities of State
governments, who are largely responsible for implementation of the upper tier legislation.

                                                                                                          9-7
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



Municipalities at all levels are expected to prepare protection plans, preferably on a watershed
basis. The primary goal is to reduce or eliminate the potential threat to drinking water supplies
within source water protection areas through federal, state, or local regulatory or statutory
controls, or through voluntary measures involving the public.

Contingency planning involves water supply replacement strategies in the event of
contamination. The approach typically involves the delineation of water protection areas,
conducting a contaminant source inventory, and determining the intrinsic susceptibility of the
source to contamination. Ordinances at the municipal level are used to govern land use
activities in restricted areas. A typical Source Water Protection Plan (SWPP) includes an
education and outreach campaign, a best management practices program, sign posting in the
WHPA, a hazardous waste disposal program, the establishment of a water protection steering
committee, and a zoning constraint overlay in the communities zoning ordinance.

The best management practices program focuses on the storage and usage of petroleum
products by businesses on a voluntary or mandatory basis. A mandatory program requires a
survey and compliance with the State level best management practices rules. The sign posting
alerts travellers to the presence of a WHPA and how to notify emergency personnel if a
contamination event should occur.

In a WHPA, prohibited land uses include hazardous waste disposal facilities, solid waste
landfills, outdoor storage of road salt, junkyards, snow dumps and wastewater or septage
lagoons.
       9.4    Developing a Groundwater Protection Strategy
Measures applied as part of a groundwater protection strategy vary across different regions of
Canada and the US. Typically, the approach that is adopted depends on local hydrologic and
hydrogeologic conditions, soil structure, land use activities, legislative experience and the
importance of water in the public policy agenda.

The most successful approaches depend on a package of protection measures that are both
voluntary and regulatory. This is essential since much of the landscape has been developed
and municipalities have limited authority to implement retroactive land use controls. Also, the
resources may not exist to expropriate or acquire lands or buildings that constitute a potential or
actual threat to contamination or which could serve as a buffer area (for instance, in the highest
sensitivity area of a WHPA).

The development of a Groundwater Protection Strategy (Strategy) should consist of measures
which provide an affordable and reasonable level of protection, and which can be adapted to
changing circumstances. The following tables provide a description of the diverse initiatives and
activities that can be considered during the development of a groundwater protection strategy.

Table 9.3 summarizes the role of the organizing committee in developing a protection strategy,
where the purpose is to oversee the development and implementation of the strategy. Table 9.4
summarized the role of managing water protection-related information in developing a protection
strategy, where the purpose is to incorporate the most pertinent data. Table 9.5 summarized the
role of education in developing a protection strategy, where the purpose is to create an
awareness of the ongoing need for groundwater protection. Table 9.6 summarized the impact of
the WHPA boundaries the development of the protection strategy. Table 9.7 summarized the
impact of the high vulnerability areas on the development of the protection strategy. Tables 9.8
9-8
                                                                     9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




through 9.10 summarize the impact of the groundwater monitoring, BMPs and spills contingency
planning on the protection strategy.

The MOE and the Counties of Grey and Bruce should consider these issues in moving forward
with Groundwater Protection Strategies.

Table 9.3:    GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
       Item                      Scope of Activities or Options                             Rationale
 Objective: to       Create a water protection advisory committee at the          Provides for current and
 establish an        local municipal level and/or county level to provide         ongoing responsibility for
 appropriate         ongoing advice to elected officials and the community        ensuring safe drinking
 organisational      on water protection measures. Committee may review           water.
 structure for the   monitoring activities, may provide a co-ordinating role
 Groundwater         amongst various agencies with mandates for ‘    water
 Protection          conservation or protection’and may serve to oversee
 Plan program        the implementation of various features of the                Establishes accountability
 delivery            Groundwater Protection Strategy. This may include            structure
                     dealing with cross-boundary controls or issues i.e.
                     adjacent municipality or county.

                     Review the municipal management structure to ensure
                     that it has the capability, resources and authority to
                     implement a Groundwater Protection Strategy. This
                     involves assigning responsibility by elected officials to
                     their planning, public works and other staff for
                     implementation of Groundwater Protection Strategy
                     measures

Table 9.4:    GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: DATA MANAGEMENT
       Item                      Scope of Activities or Options                             Rationale
 Objective: To       Design and maintain a community-accessible data base         Data base will facilitate
 provide the         on water protection-related information e.g.                 improved decision making
 best possible           • Updated inventory of contaminant sources               on planning applications
 data base on            • Water well records                                     and other development
 which to make           • Hydrological and hydrogeological studies and           decisions with water
 decisions                  investigations                                        protection implications
 related to water        • Nutrient management plans                              Provides graphic (updated)
 protection              • Permits to take water                                  information base to
                         • Septic tank re-inspections                             support
                         • Water quality tests                                    municipal/community
                                                                                  decision making on water
                         • Communal systems: location/ownership/service
                                                                                  resource matters
                            area/size
                         • Initiate GIS-based mapping system for data
                            entry on water resource information




                                                                                                               9-9
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



 Table 9.5:     GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: EDUCATION
       Item                         Scope of Activities or Options                           Rationale
 Objective: to        Establish vision statement and logo for Groundwater           Brings a focus to all
 create a             Protection Strategy at a Council or Community level           Groundwater Protection
 greater                                                                            Strategy related activities
 awareness on                                                                       and a tangible goal.
 the ongoing          Establish the scope of topical matters for an ‘  education    Enables community to
 need for             based’water protection program to prevent the                 establish priority list of
 groundwater          contamination of drinking water: e.g.                         issues related to
 protection and             • Maintenance of septic tanks and wells and             Groundwater Protection
 to develop a                    septage disposal                                   Strategy
 community                  • Managing communal systems
 ‘water ethic’              • Managing above and below ground storage
                                 tanks
                            • Managing livestock wastes
                            • Managing vehicle washing
                            • Safe storage and usage of household solvents,
                                 chemicals, fuels and hazardous wastes
                            • Application of agricultural fertilisers, pesticides
                                 and fungicides
                            • Livestock grazing and watering
                            • Safe use of household pesticides and
                                 herbicides
                            • Safe use of road salts
                            • Disposal of hazardous wastes
                            • Managing pet and wildlife wastes
                            • Managing stormwater and drainage runoff
                            • Plugging abandoned wells
                            • Stewardship of private wetlands and recharge
                                 areas
                            • Clean-up of contaminated sites
                      Initiate a newsletter or comparable news organ for            One of several techniques
                      distribution to householders and businesses that              for information
                      provides information or advice on water protection and        dissemination
                      conservation measures. Could be sent out with tax or
                      utility bills.
                      Create a ‘   Safe Drinking Water Week’with several            One of several techniques
                      events designed to raise public awareness i.e. media          for information
                      campaign, trade show, demonstration projects,                 dissemination
                      shopping centre displays
                      Work with school boards to develop/modify curriculum          One of several    techniques
                      on topical issues for groundwater protection and              for information
                      conservation                                                  dissemination
                      Create informational handout or ‘  Fact Sheet’on              One of several    techniques
                      measures for groundwater protection. Display at               for information
                      municipal offices, libraries and other public places          dissemination
                      Convene a Town Hall meeting in the community to               One of several    techniques
                      discuss water protection issues and community                 for information
                      initiatives                                                   dissemination
                      Participate/sponsor event in a community event e.g. fall      One of several    techniques
                      fair, winter carnival, home builders show etc., that          for information
                      focuses on groundwater protection/conservation                dissemination

9-10
                                                                 9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




Table 9.5:   GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: EDUCATION
      Item                   Scope of Activities or Options                             Rationale
                 Partner with MOE, OMAF, MNR on a householder                 One of several techniques
                 workshop on a selected topic(s) on groundwater               for information
                 protection                                                   dissemination
                 Include a ‘State of the Groundwater Resource’                One of several techniques
                                                s
                 statement as part of the mayor’ annual report                for information
                                                                              dissemination
                 Certify and maintain municipal staff accreditation for       Ensures the qualification of
                 persons who perform operational work in water                assigned staff to provide
                 treatment and distribution facilities                        for safe drinking water
                                                                              Ensures that there is an
                                                                              elevated awareness and
                                                                                              city
                                                                              skills level in ‘ hall’for
                                                                              staff with responsibility for
                                                                              water protection other than
                                                                              utility operators
                 Review, maintain, update reference materials and             Provides accessible
                 publications/videos in municipal libraries on water          information to the broader
                 resource, water protection subjects                          public
                 Build in feature to municipal websites with URL linkages     Highlights water as an
                 on municipal water protection initiatives and consumer       important public policy
                 information sources                                          issue




                                                                                                         9-11
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



Table 9.6:    GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS
       Item                         Scope of Activities or Options                         Rationale
 Objective: to        Amend county and local Official Plans to incorporate         Establishes framework for
 protect              policies for groundwater protection. Plan may include        variety of implementation
 municipal            goal, objectives, policy statements and implementation       measures municipality(ies)
 wellhead areas       measures for wellhead protection. Approach would be to       may use to protect
 from potential       describe a WHPA, description of time-of-travel as it         groundwater
 contamination        relates to provincial protocols and land uses restrictions
                      that apply to one or more sensitivity zones.

                      See example in Appendix H
                      Amend zoning by-laws for local municipalities to             Establishes legal controls
                      incorporate provisions for restricting land uses in WHPA     on land use activities in
                                                                                   WHPA
                      Co-ordinate policy development and regulatory control        Ensures consistency in
                      to address cross municipal boundary or county issues         policy and regulatory
                                                                                   approach and provides for
                                                                                   uniform and universal
                                                                                   protection across WHPA
                      Post signs on roads at entry points WHPA to alert                           s
                                                                                   Raises public’ awareness
                      travellers to the presence of a WHPA and how to notify       of location on the ground
                      emergency personnel if a contamination event should          of a WHPA and the
                      occur                                                        importance of protecting a
                                                                                   WHPA
                      Inform all property owners, by mail, which own property      Raises property owner’   s
                      in a WHPA of the presence of the WHPA and the                awareness of location on
                      applicable land use controls. This is in addition to the     the ground of a WHPA and
                      formal processes under the Planning Act, since all           the importance of
                      property owners may not participate in the planning          protecting a WHPA
                      process


Table 9.7:    GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: HIGH AQUIFER VULNERABLE AREAS
       Item                         Scope of Activities or Options                         Rationale
 Objective: to        Amend county and local Official Plans to incorporate         Establishes framework for
 protect high         policies for groundwater protection. Plan may include        variety of implementation
 aquifer              goal, objectives, policy statements and implementation       measures municipality
 vulnerable           measures for high aquifer vulnerable areas. Approach         (ies) may use to protect
 areas from           would be to describe land uses restrictions that apply to    groundwater
 potential            one or more sensitivity zones.
 contamination
                      See example in Appendix H
                      Co-ordinate policy development and regulatory control        Ensures consistency in
                      to address cross municipal boundary or county issues         policy and regulatory
                                                                                   approach and provides for
                                                                                   uniform and universal
                                                                                   protection
                      Amend zoning by-laws for local municipalities to
                      incorporate provisions for restricting land uses in high
                      aquifer vulnerable areas




9-12
                                                                      9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




Table 9.8:      GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: MONITORING
        Item                      Scope of Activities or Options                             Rationale
 Objective: to        Maintain an inventory of test results from monitoring of      Enables municipality to
 oversee post         development impacts required as a condition of                determine development
 development          development approval                                          impacts and require
 impacts                                                                            mitigation measures where
                                                                                    results do not meet
                                                                                    acceptable performance
                                                                                    standards
                      Monitoring programs which generate data/information           Improves the information
                      should be added to data base                                  upon which subsequent
                                                                                    applications and land use
                                                                                    decisions will be made



 Table 9.9:      GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
         Item                       Scope of Activities or Options                            Rationale
 Objective: to          Review haulage routes for dangerous goods and revise          Serves to reduce the
 institute              routes to direct the transport of dangerous goods away        potential for a spill of a
 measures for           from WHPA and high aquifer vulnerable areas                   contaminant into a
 groundwater                                                                          groundwater capture
 protection                                                                           zone
                        Acquire lands/properties and buildings within Sensitivity     Serves to institute
                        Zone 1 of a WHPA or establish a conservation                  absolute control on any
                                                            no
                        easement to restrict or establish a ‘ development             and all land uses that
                        zone’                                                         may contaminate a
                                                                                      municipal water supply
                                                        crop dusting’ away from
                        Direct aerial spray activities (‘           )                 Serves to reduce the
                        WHPA                                                          potential contamination
                                                                                      of a municipal water
                                                                                      supply
                        Establish maintenance program for sanitary and storm          Serves to reduce the
                        water sewers passing through a WHPA to ensure that            potential contamination
                        the integrity of the seals and infrastructure are             of a municipal water
                        maintained. Where feasible, sewer mains should be             supply
                        relocated outside of a Sensitivity Zone 1 or 2 WHPA
                        Review Emergency Measures Preparedness Plans to               Serves to reduce the
                        incorporate provision for dealing with a dangerous            potential contamination
                        goods spill incident in a WHPA or a high aquifer              of a municipal water
                        vulnerability area                                            supply
                        Initiate a septic tank re-inspection program in WHPA          Serves to reduce the
                        and high aquifer vulnerability areas                          potential contamination
                                                                                      of a municipal water
                                                                                      supply
                        Stage a hazardous wastes collection program annually          Serves to reduce the
                        with a particular emphasis on WHPA and high aquifer           potential contamination
                        vulnerability areas                                           of a municipal water
                                                                                      supply



                                                                                                              9-13
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy



 Table 9.9:     GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
        Item                          Scope of Activities or Options                        Rationale
                        Review utilities rights-of-way pesticide spraying            Serves to reduce the
                        practices with utility companies where such ROWs             potential contamination
                        traverse WHPA and high aquifer vulnerability areas and       of a municipal water
                        encourage/negotiate modification of practices where          supply
                        necessary
                        Encourage farm community, landscaping firms and golf         Serves to reduce the
                        course operators in WHPA and high aquifer vulnerability      potential contamination
                        areas to review activities which might lead to releases of   of a municipal water
                        nutrients (fertilizers, manure), nitrogen or pesticides to   supply
                        groundwater or stormwater runoff
                        Encourage clean up of ‘   brownfields’and other known or     Serves to reduce the
                        potentially contaminated sites. Remove underground           potential contamination
                        (USTs) and above ground storage tanks (ASTs) that            of a municipal water
                        have been abandoned or are no longer used                    supply
                        Review/enact Property Standards by-law or consider           Serves to reduce the
                        Yard Clean-up by-law under the Municipal Act as a            potential contamination
                        means to clean-up properties and remove derelict motor       of a municipal water
                        vehicles                                                     supply
                        Review/enact Site Alteration By-law under the Municipal      Serves to reduce the
                        Act to govern excavation activities and other activities     potential contamination
                        which may affect erosion or sedimentation that may           of a municipal water
                        discharge contaminants into a municipal water supply         supply
                        Review winter control de-icing policy/procedures to          Serves to reduce the
                        minimize road salting in WHPA and high aquifer               potential contamination
                        vulnerability areas                                          of a municipal water
                                                                                     supply
                        Review sewer use by-law for contaminant discharge            Serves to reduce the
                        standards and ensure that provision is made for grit, gas    potential contamination
                        and oil interceptors in site plans for industrial and        of a municipal water
                        commercial uses with potential contaminant discharges        supply
                        Install sentry wells for industrial and commercial uses to   and high aquifer
                        monitor contaminant discharges where septic systems          vulnerability areas
                        or dry wells are utilized as part of the industrial
                        processes in the general vicinity of a WHPA or and high
                        aquifer vulnerability areas as a condition of development
                        or redevelopment
                        Conserve woodlots in WHPA and high aquifer                   Enhances water
                        vulnerability areas                                          retention and water
                                                                                     quality in areas of
                                                                                     potential recharge
                        Cap unused or abandoned water wells                          Serves to reduce the
                                                                                     potential contamination
                                                                                     of a municipal water
                                                                                     supply




9-14
                                                                     9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




Table 9.10:     GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY: SPILL AND CONTINGENCY PLANNING
         Item                       Scope of Activities or Options                           Rationale
 Objective: to          Develop a ‘  Spill Response Plan’for oil or hazardous        A clear spill response
 respond                materials. This should identify who does what at the         plan is necessary to
 expeditiously          local municipal, county and provincial level in reporting    guide the public and
 to spills and          and responding to spills. This should include provision      municipal        officials
 provide                for minor and major spills and the identification of         through the process
 alternative water      Transport Canada (CANUTEC) as the agency to identify
 supply source          unknown or the handling methods of chemicals
                        A spill response plan should be developed for industrial     Serves to reduce the
                        and commercial land uses as a condition of site              potential contamination
                        development where the use is considered to have the          of a municipal water
                        potential for a spill during the transport or storage of     supply
                        contaminant products or as part of the processing
                        operation
                        A contingency plan should be developed to provide an         A dependable supply of
                        alternative water supply where a municipal supply is         water is essential for
                        threatened by a spill or contaminant on a short term         householders         and
                        basis i.e. pending acceptable clean-up. This should          particularly for health
                        include provision for a bottled water supply (supplier,      care,       social   and
                        trucking and delivery) and implementation procedures         educational institutions
                        (public notification) of a boil-water order. Consideration   within the community.
                        should also be given to a supplier for a pre-packaged
                        water treatment system for an emergency or short-term
                        solution.
                        In a worst case scenario, a long term contingency option
                        may require consideration for connection to a supply
                        source from another community




                                                                                                             9-15
9. Groundwater Protection Management Strategy




         9.5   Summary
Water resources management is a concern that has an impact on many interests in a
community, both public and private. As such, a successful approach to protecting groundwater
will require a coordinated and cooperative approach on an ongoing basis. The measures put
into place should be done to affect a permanent approach to groundwater protection.

Some measures will be more difficult to implement than others. However, implementing these
measures will likely be less costly than developing an alternative source of water. Developing a
“water ethic” in the community is a paradigm where all residents will adopt water protection as
routine aspects of their daily lives. The prescription of options suggested in this report will
require elected officials and private authorities to establish priorities for implementation. The
following recommendations should serve to provide some direction in this regard.

       1. That an organizational structure be established to oversee and coordinate the
          implementation of water protection measures.

       2. That land use planning documents be amended to establish the policy and regulatory
          framework for instituting effective land use controls for future development.

       3. That a spills and contingency plan be initiated early in the implementation process.

       4. That provision be made for the development and maintenance of a database that can be
          used in making decisions and incorporating new information in response to development
          and monitoring activities.

       5. That a public education and outreach program be developed for the ongoing education
          of the public, the operation of the municipal water supply infrastructure and the
          administration and enforcement of regulatory and voluntary controls for water protection.

       6. That Best Management Practices be utilized where feasible as measures to minimize
          the potential contamination of private and municipal water supply sources.




9-16
                                                                                10. Recommendations




10         Recommendations
      10.1 Overview
The Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study was undertaken to develop an improved
understanding of local groundwater conditions within the context of larger regional groundwater
flow systems. At the onset, the objectives of the study were to:

Objective 1:   Define and map local and regional groundwater conditions;
Objective 2:   Define groundwater intrinsic susceptibility;
Objective 3:   Compile a contaminant sources inventory;
Objective 4:   Complete WHPA mapping for the municipal groundwater systems;
Objective 5:   Conduct a contaminant source assessment within each WHPA;
Objective 6:   Develop an action plan for implementing groundwater source protection; and,
Objective 7:   Promote public groundwater awareness throughout the study area.

These objective were completed and the results are presented in this report and accompanying
maps. During the completion of the study, numerous recommendations arose that relate to
specific study objectives, which are discussed in the following sections.
      10.2 Groundwater and Aquifer Characterization Recommendations
Regional groundwater and aquifer characterization was completed across the study area.
During this work, information was incorporated into a project database. To help ensure that
additional information is incorporated into the database in a consistent manner, the database
should be maintained by a single data warehouse. The regional characterization should be
made available to other end users that may be conducting geologic and hydrogeologic
investigations within the Counties.

Recommendation 1: MOE Inspection of New Wells
It is recommended that all new municipal wells must be inspected by the MOE at the time of
drilling, and georeferenced as a check on location accuracy. This will improve the reliability of
the information in the WWIS database, and future hydrogeologic assessments that use this
database. The aquifer characterization that was completed was developed primarily with the
                           s
water wells from the MOE’ Water Well Information System. There is a large degree of location
and elevation uncertainty associated with many of the wells drilled in the past. The most
important wells in the WWIS are municipal wells, which are often the deepest wells in the
database. The inspection of all new municipal wells by the MOE will have the added benefit of
reducing elevation uncertainty because the well elevation can then be checked against the
           s
Province’ Digital Elevation Model of the Counties.

Recommendation 2: Investigate Karst Along the Niagara Escarpment
An improved understanding of the groundwater flow throughout the County was developed
through the regional aquifer characterization. Groundwater, in general, flows from east to west,
and there is significant recharge along the Niagara Escarpment where the overburden is thin
and karst features are more common. These karst features (caves, sinkholes, sinking streams
and lakes, springs and karst pavement) are an important component of the Intrinsic
Susceptibility mapping that was completed for the study area. As a result, they should be
considered during the development of a Groundwater Protection Strategy, and further study on
the distribution of karst areas should be completed, to better understand their importance in
groundwater recharge and groundwater vulnerability along the Niagara Escarpment.



                                                                                               10-1
10. Recommendations



       10.3 Groundwater Intrinsic Susceptibility Recommendations
Groundwater intrinsic susceptibility for the uppermost significant aquifer was evaluated using
the MOE Water Well Information System and information on karst areas within the Counties.
Throughout most of the study area, the uppermost groundwater flow system was considered to
have medium or high susceptibility. Some areas of Bruce County were characterized by low
susceptibility due to the thick units of clay and silt-rich Quaternary deposits.

Recommendation 3: Incorporating ISI Results into the Groundwater Protection Strategy
Medium and high susceptibility classes are the most important classes to consider in terms of
aquifer vulnerability. They result from the presence of high permeability overburden units with
little, or no, low conductivity layers overlying the aquifer. These areas are of significance when
they are located near municipal pumping wells. As a result, it is recommended that medium and
high susceptibility areas be considered as part of a Groundwater Protection Strategy, as
discussed above in Section 10.7.
       10.4 Groundwater Use Assessment Recommendations
A regional groundwater use assessment was conducted using information on municipal,
communal, agricultural, private and large-scale industrial water taking. An analysis of the
Permits To Take Water database shows that there are 254 PTTW using groundwater, of which
37 are large-scale users. Based on maximum permitted rate, large-scale use in the Counties is
75.8 million m3/year. Estimates of the rural population of the study area were used to determine
rural domestic groundwater use, which is 4.7 million m3/year. The Engineer's Reports were used
to determine municipal groundwater use, which is 6.8 million m 3/year. The PTTW database was
used to estimate communal and campground groundwater use, which is 1.1 million m3/year.
Census Canada data was used to estimate agricultural groundwater use, which is 8.2 million
m3 /year. As a result, total groundwater use within the Counties is 96.6 million m3 /year.

Recommendation 4: Localized Understanding of Groundwater Use Impacts
A regional water budget of the study area concludes that the Counties receive an average of
between 650 and 1,300 million m 3/year (75 - 150 mm/year) of recharge. Although this indicates
that at a regional-scale there is an abundance of groundwater (9.9% of the available recharge is
currently being used for water supply within the Counties), further investigation at a more local,
sub-watershed scale should be considered. This may be completed in combination with
watershed-based groundwater models, which can be used to delineate sensitive recharge areas
that supply baseflow discharge, provide estimates of aquifer yield, optimize the location for the
development of new municipal well supplies, and aid in the evaluation of new Permit To Take
Water applications for groundwater use.

Recommendation 5: Better Tracking of Actual Water Use for PTTW Permits
Currently, Permits to Take Water (PTTW) are contained within a different database than the
Water Well Information System (WWIS), and actual groundwater use is unavailable. To facilitate
better permit tracking, the information in the Permit to Take Water database should be linked to
the WWIS. Where possible, WWIS well identification numbers have been linked to specific
permits, however this should be completed at a Provincial level to ensure consistency between
different jurisdictions.
       10.5 Potential Contaminant Sources Inventory Recommendations
Potential contaminant sources were mapped within the study area using information collected
from the MOE database. This assessment included contaminant spills, fuel storage sites, PCB
storage areas, and MOE Certificates of Approval. Of the 1037 records in the database, 237


10-2
                                                                                   10. Recommendations



were located and mapped. Location information and the accuracy of each record was
incorporated into the project database. In addition, 37 active landfills, 88 closed landfills, and 20
wastewater treatment plants were located and added to the database. An analysis of the WWIS
database determined that there are 526 potentially abandoned boreholes within the study area,
which could provide a route of contamination from the ground surface to lower aquifers. Finally,
a contaminant assessment within each WHPA was completed, which georeferenced 339
additional potential contaminant source locations.

Recommendation 6: Further Investigation of Potential Contaminant Sources
The WHPA contaminant assessment indicates that there are many more potential contaminant
sources within the Counties than are contained in the MOE database and the other information
sources that were surveyed. Further investigation of potential contaminant sources within the
study area is recommended. This will provide a more complete database of potential
contaminant sources within the Counties. As additional information is collected or becomes
available, the information contained in the database of potential contaminant sources should be
updated. This database should continue to be maintained by each County.
      10.6 WHPA Specific Recommendations
A large component of this groundwater study was the development of 22 MODFLOW models to
define the WHPA boundaries for 45 municipal groundwater systems in Grey and Bruce
Counties. These models were all based on the same 3-layered conceptualization of the
groundwater environment around each wellfield, for which the model domain was chosen to
represent the flow conditions on a sub-regional scale (i.e. containing the rivers, lakes and
streams within a sub-watershed). Each model was calibrated to the water levels from the WWIS
wells within the model domain. As such, these models provide a good representation of the
steady-state groundwater flow field within the model domain, and are well suited to defining the
recharge area (time-related capture zones) for the municipal wells contained within them.

Recommendation 7: Use of the MODFLOW Models to Update WHPA Results
It is recommended that Grey and Bruce Counties use these groundwater models to update
WHPA boundaries as new information becomes available. Groundwater use by each
municipality changes over time due to changes in development, wellfield configuration, well
pumping rates, and the development of new groundwater wells. This was evident during the
finalization of the WHPA model for Markdale, whereby one well (Terra Drive) was removed from
the model and two new wells (#3 and #4) were added to the model. The groundwater model,
once it was calibrated, was easily used to provide updated WHPA boundaries based on new
information about wellfield configuration. These groundwater models are also useful tools for
identifying potential locations for new municipal wells, in conjunction with the GIS database of
medium and high vulnerability areas and potential contaminant sources.
      10.7 Groundwater Protection Strategy Recommendations
Recommendation 8: Develop and Implement a Groundwater Protection Strategy
It is recommended that Grey and Bruce Counties, in consultation with the MOE, develop and
implement a Groundwater Protection Strategy that incorporates some of the different
components described in the report. A Protection Advisory Committee comprised of
representatives similar to those involved during the current study should oversee the refinement
and implementation the Strategy. The knowledge of the Steering Committee for the current
study can be used during the implementation of the Strategy. An advisory committee can
provide the guidance necessary to evaluate different Strategy options and to coordinate
between each County and its member municipalities. The importance of groundwater to Grey



                                                                                                  10-3
10. Recommendations



and Bruce Counties underscores the need to manage the resource. The Protection Advisory
Committee should evaluate the following Groundwater Protection Strategy components:

•      Data Management;
•      Public Education;
•      Wellhead Protection Areas;
•      Areas of High Vulnerability;
•      Groundwater Monitoring;
•      Best Management Practices;
•      Proper Well Decommissioning;
•      Spill and Contingency Planning;
•      Official Plans; and,
•      Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations.

          8.1    Ensure that Groundwater Data is Properly Managed
Data management facilitates improved decision making on planning applications and other
development decisions with water protection implications. The ability to overlay different types of
information within a GIS (Geographic Information System), such as WHPAs and locations of
fuel storage tanks, provides decision makers with the information necessary to evaluate future
planning initiatives and potential risks to groundwater resources. Data should be managed at
one location, with coordination between other parties that may use the information. As additional
data and metadata becomes available, the database should be revised to incorporate this
information. Land Information Ontario (LIO) may be able to accommodate these needs.
However, since the mandate of LIO is very broad, a local role will likely be required to
dynamically maintain the database. Upper tier municipalities have found that an active data
management role is essential for proactive groundwater management.

          8.2    Use Public Education Initiatives to Foster Groundwater Protection
Education initiatives are recognized to be an excellent, cost-effective means of fostering change
with regards to groundwater protection and resource management. Education promotes current
and ongoing responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water. Working through different avenues,
the importance of protecting groundwater can be promoted. The County should continue to
provide groundwater information on their website, and should consider supplementing the
website with additional information to promote conservation and protection measures. The
Internet provides a means for many County residents to access information at their leisure.
Developing groundwater information for inclusion with municipal and County mailings should
also be considered. Reminders in mailings can be used to promote specific initiatives, and also
point residents to other information sources such as the County website and other agencies.

          8.3    Acknowledge and Protect Wellhead Protection Areas
WHPAs represent the most critical areas surrounding a well. The WHPAs that were delineated
for this groundwater study include the 50-day, 2-year, 10-year, and 25-year WHPAs for the
different municipal wellfields. A part of the future Groundwater Protection Plan should include
the acknowledgement of these wellhead protection areas.

Throughout this study the time-of-travel through the groundwater environment has been an
important concept in defining the susceptibility and protection of groundwater resources. With
this in mind, the Protection Advisory Committee should consider different protection measures




10-4
                                                                                   10. Recommendations



based on the time-of-travel for the different WHPAs. Greater protection should be established in
the more sensitive (shorter time-of-travel) zones.

       8.4     Acknowledge and Protect High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas
Much of the groundwater resources of Grey and Bruce Counties have been characterized as
having a high susceptibility. These areas are concentrated in the Bruce Peninsula, along the
Niagara Escarpment, and in areas where the overburden is very thin. The Protection Advisory
Committee should consider protection measures in these areas since they represent zones
where surface contaminants could quickly migrate to the bedrock and pose a risk to
groundwater users in the area. This could be accomplished by defining these areas as a
sensitivity Zone 2. In areas of thick overburden, intrinsic susceptibility mapping of the production
aquifer should be undertaken to better understand the vulnerability of the production aquifers.
       8.5     Monitor Groundwater Quality
Sentinel monitoring wells help to identify groundwater contaminants before they can impact a
well. The Protection Advisory Committee should consider sentinel wells, located within each
WHPA. Where possible, the wells should be located near the 2-year time-of-travel WHPA.
Sentinel well monitoring should be conducted semi-annually. Specific chemical and physical
constituents to be monitored can be finalized after an initial analysis of Ontario Drinking Water
Standard (ODWS) parameters is completed. Based on the review of water quality at the
different municipal wells, fluoride, chloride, nitrate, heavy metals, and other chemicals related to
nearby land uses should be considered in the monitoring program. Trigger levels for each
monitoring well should be established to help ensure water quality concerns are identified.
Triggers should address situations where a specific chemical concentration is consistently
increasing or exceeds a ODWS threshold. Chemical constituents that are non-health related
(such as hardness) should be differentiated from health related parameters.

Different municipal wells should be assigned different priorities during any sentinel well
program, since it may not be feasible to construct and maintain sentinel wells for each municipal
well. Municipal wells that serve larger numbers of residents, and wells in areas serviced by a
single well must should be balanced against municipal wells that serve small numbers of
residents, and systems with multiple wells capable of supplementing the municipal system. It is
appropriate to provide initial guidance related to the priority that should be assigned to
developing sentinel wells for specific municipal systems. Note that the prioritization provided
below was completed at a preliminary level, and that further refinement of the different priority
levels would be appropriate.

       8.6     Encourage the Use of Best Management Practices
Best management practices can reduce the risk that specific actions have on groundwater.
Wherever possible, BMPs should be developed and encouraged. A comprehensive list of BMPs
is provided in Section 9. Within sensitive areas, the Protection Advisory Committee should
consider incentives to promote the implementation of BMPs. At wellheads, the Counties and the
municipalities should take a leadership role by implementing BMPs. It is important that local
government set an example for others to follow.

At each municipal well, the following measures should be considered:

• No application of fertilizers or pesticides;
• No vehicles within 25 m of the well (where this is not feasible, no vehicles should be
  permitted on the property the well is on);
• Construct a fence surrounding the well property;


                                                                                                  10-5
10. Recommendations



• No storage of solvents, paints, salt, or other hazardous material within 25 metres of the
  wellhead;
• Appropriate site grading away from all wells;
• Properly decommission any wells (pumping and observation) that have been abandoned;
  and,
• Procedures to follow with telephone numbers to call in the event of a spill or emergency.

Where possible, the 25 m buffer distance should be enlarged to include all of the property on
which the municipal well is situated.

The following are examples of environmental programs that apply to the agricultural community.

Environmenal Farm Plans – a program designed to encourage individual farmers to evaluate
the environmental hazards associated with all aspects of their farm and farming operations and
to identify measures to eliminate or minimize the risks. This program is associated with an
incentive program to assist farmer in making the most urgent changes. The farm plan is an
ongoing record of environmental stewardship and is facilitated by a regional coordinator and
standardized through evaluation and acceptance by a peer review committee. This activity deals
with the kinds of risks associated with the farm enterprise.

Best Management Practices – a series of educational booklets documenting a broad range of
practices which can be incorporated into farm operations to reduce environmental risk. The
booklets provide guidance as to which practices are best suited to individual farm situations and
how best to adapt them. These booklets deal with the kinds of risks associated with components
of the farm enterprise.

Nutrient Management Act (NMA) (Bill 81) and associated regulations - This is a program to
categorize farm operations and define the nature of regulation and timing for implementation of
a nutrient management plan. This will ensure that all nutrients on the farm (from livestock,
biosolids, legume fixation and chemical fertilizers) are used with best possible efficiency for crop
production. This program also deals with various proximity hazards by requiring setbacks in
nutrient applications from the surface drainage network and wells. As such, it considers, to
some extent, the risks of sediment transport by water erosion.

It is important to note that surface water quality considerations have been the primary
consideration in the development to date of nutrient management protocols. While good nutrient
management practices will provide a measure of protection to all water resources (both surface
and ground), efforts are currently under way to provide specific attention to groundwater issues
related to nutrients. In addition, the current act deals specifically with nutrient management
issues; additional efforts are being directed to management practices which will minimize risks
from pathogens.

Some aspects of the Nutrient Management Protocols associated with the NMA are currently
under review (the latest update was released March, 2003). As a consequence, it is not possible
to make definitive statements about the relationship between this act and associated protocols
and a groundwater protection strategy. However, it is useful to note that the NMA and
associated protocols propose the following categories of farm in the consultation draft stage
(November 2002).




10-6
                                                                                  10. Recommendations



For farms with a livestock component to the operation are defined by number of nutrient units. A
nutrient unit means the amount of nutrients that give the fertilizer replacement value of the lower
of 43 kg of nitrogen or 55 kg of phosphate as nutrient as established by reference to the nutrient
management protocol. Generally the source of these nutrients is from animal waste.

The categories listed are taken from the consultation draft (November, 2002) but the
descriptions have been modified to reflect the current situation as per the March, 2003 release
and subsequent clarification (Derek Nelson, personal communication).

Category 1: In the November draft this category was for farms with up to 30 nutrient units – it
has been reduced to farms with 5 nutrient units or less (annual maximum) - exempt from the act
and regulations;
Category 2 (under review): 30 to 150 nutrient units (annual maximum);
Category 3 (under review): 150 to 300 nutrient units (annual maximum);
Farms with 6 to 299 nutrient units (annual maximum) – the categories of livestock farms in this
size range have been referred to the provincial advisory committee for confirmation, revision,
amalgamation or other treatment and also to determine a timeframe for implementation of the
regulations.
Category 4: 300 or more nutrient units (annual maximum)
Categories of farm with no livestock component (from the November, 2002 consultation draft)
have all been referred to the provincial advisory committee for confirmation, revision,
amalgamation or other treatment and to determine a timeframe for implementation of the
regulations. These categories include:
Category 5 (under review): Greenhouse and container nurseries; a farm unit or operation which
is capable of generating or receiving greenhouse and container nursery leachate;
Category 6 (under review): Non-agricultural source material generators and users; a farm unit or
operation which is capable of generating or receiving a non-agricultural source material as
defined in the protocol;
Category 7 (under review): Miscellaneous agricultural sources material sources and users; a
farm unit or operation that is capable of generating or receiving an agricultural source materials
as set out in the protocol;
Category 8 (under review): Commercial fertilizer users; a farm unit which land applies only
commercial fertilizers;
Category 9 (under review): An intermediate operation.

The phasing of the NMA and regulations depends on the category of operation. Based on
information form OMAF (March 21, 2003) and Derek Nelson (personal communication) the
following timings have been announced.

• The current category 1 farms (5 nutrient units or less) are exempt from the NMA and
  regulations.
• July 1, 2003; is the current implementation date of the proposed regulations for (i) all new
  livestock farms, (ii) livestock farms expanding into the large category and (iii) farms
  expanding within the large category.




                                                                                                 10-7
10. Recommendations



• In 2005; all existing large livestock farms (300 or more nutrient units annual maximum) are
  to be covered by the nutrient management regulations.

While not all categories and times of implementation of regulations associated with the NMA are
available, the categories will ultimately provide definitions of agricultural operations directly
linked to regulations. It would appear useful to refer to these categories as they are finalized to
assess the implications of agricultural operations of groundwater.

        8.7      Address Well Abandonment
Proper well decommissioning is controlled under MOE Regulation 903, which requires proper
abandonment of all wells. However, in the past this regulation has not been strictly enforced,
and improperly abandoned wells exist throughout the Counties.

Improperly decommissioned wells pose a threat to groundwater quality. Surface contamination
can move through an abandoned or poorly constructed well very quickly, circumventing
protective till within the overburden. Where feasible the Counties should identify improperly
abandoned wells and work with MOE to have them properly sealed, for which the estimated
cost to properly decommission a well is on the order of $3,000 to $6,000 per well. These efforts
should be focussed in highly sensitive areas such as the 2-year capture zones, and should be
linked to funding opportunities such as those provided by the OMAF “ Healthy Futures”program.

        8.8      Ensure Spills and Contingency Planning is in Place
A clear spill response plan is necessary to guide the public and municipal officials in the event of
a spill. A spill contingency plan promotes a quick and deliberate response to a contaminant spill.
A plan should include information about specific responsibilities of different individuals and
organizations and contact numbers that should be called in the event of a spill. Businesses
should be encouraged to develop of spill and contingency plans and information regarding who
should be contacted can be distributed to all businesses or targeted to businesses that are in
WHPAs.

        8.9      Incorporate Groundwater Protection Planning into Official Plans
In addition to the strategies recommended for consideration above, the Counties and the
Protection Advisory Committee should consider incorporating groundwater resource protection
policies into the County Official Plans. Appendix H includes additional information and example
language that could be used if the County Official Plans are to be amended as part of a
Groundwater Protection Strategy.

        8.10     Better Enforcement of Existing Rules and Regulations
Stricter enforcement of rules and regulations that pertain to groundwater and water wells will
improve the security of groundwater supplies throughout the Counties. Current guidelines
related to well abandonment and proper decommissioning (Reg. 903) are in place, however it is
evident that landowners are not aware of the requirements of the Regulation and that
enforcement of the Regulation is not occurring. Information could be distributed to the public,
informing them about Reg. 903, and that only licensed drillers are permitted to construct wells.




10-8
                                                                                         11. Glossary




11     Glossary
This glossary is intended to provide a definition of the terms that are used throughout the text of
this Final Report, as well as the acronyms used to represent scientific terms, and the units of
measure used to define parameter values.
      11.1     Glossary
Aquifer – (1) A geologic formation, a group of formations, or a part of a formation that is water
bearing. (2) A geological formation or structure that stores or transmits water, or both, such as
to wells and springs. (3) An underground layer of porous rock, sand, or gravel containing large
amounts of water. Use of the term is usually restricted to those water bearing structures capable
of yielding water in sufficient quantity to constitute a usable supply. (4) A sand, gravel, or rock
formation capable of storing or conveying water below the surface of the land. (5) A geologic
formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated
permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs.
Aquifer Capability – The maximum rate of withdrawal that can be sustained by an aquifer
without causing an unacceptable decline in the hydraulic head of the aquifer, or causing
unacceptable changes to any other component of the hydrologic system. Capability is
calculated at a watershed scale in terms of a water budget.
Aquifer Recharge Area – An area in which water can infiltrate the soil and replenish an aquifer
relatively easily. Aquifer recharge areas allow precipitation to reach an aquifer by infiltration.
Recharge areas are often much smaller than the total aquifer area and are therefore very
important to the aquifer. Artificially increasing runoff in a recharge area through paving or
clearing can devastate an aquifer.
Aquifer Susceptibility (or Vulnerability) – An intrinsic property of a groundwater system that
depends on the sensitivity of that system to human and/or natural impacts. Intrinsic Vulnerability
depends solely on the hydrogeologic properties of an aquifer. Specific Vulnerability depends on
hydrogeologic properties of an aquifer and an imposed contaminant load.
Biosolids – The end product from the processes used to treat wastewater, often from
municipal, industrial or institutional sources. Biosolids are primarily organic materials but can
contain other trace elements such as metals.
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) – A model of terrain relief in the form of the matrix. A digital
representation of the ground surface topography.
Geographic Information System (GIS) – A computer software system with which spatial
information may be captured, stored, analyzed, displayed, and retrieved.
Groundwater – Water that infiltrates the earth's surface. Groundwater originates as
precipitation and is suspended by the soil for varying lengths of time depending on soil type,
vegetation cover, and land use. Groundwater is responsible for feeding vegetation and for
recharging aquifers.
Hydraulic Conductivity (K) – A coefficient of proportionality describing the rate at which water
can move through an aquifer or other permeable medium. In the Standard International System,
the units are cubic meters per day per square meter of medium (m3/day/m2) or m/day (for unit
measures).
Hydrogeologic – Those factors that deal with subsurface waters and related geologic aspects
of surface waters.




                                                                                                11-1
11. Glossary



Hydrogeology – The part of geology concerned with the functions of water in modifying the
earth, especially by erosion and deposition; geology of ground water, with particular emphasis
on the chemistry and movement of water.
                                                                                     s
Hydrologic Cycle (Water Cycle) – The circuit of water movement from the earth’ atmosphere
to the earth and back through sequential stages such as precipitation, runoff, infiltration,
evaporation, transpiration, etc. The hydrologic cycle has many different variations. Typically,
water vapour in the atmosphere falls to the earth as rain. It is then transported to an open body
of water via streams and rivers or through runoff or aquifer discharge. It is then evaporated and
returns to the atmosphere as vapour. Alternately, once water enters the soil it may be absorbed
by plants and returned to the atmosphere through transpiration (evaporation of water from the
leaves of a living plant).
Hydrology – The science of earth's water resources. The scope of hydrology includes water’    s
occurrence, distribution, circulation, physical and chemical properties, and reactions with and
effects on the environment.
Lithology – (Geology) (1) The scientific study of rocks, usually with the unaided eye or with little
magnification. (2) Loosely, the structure and composition of a rock formation. (3) The description
of rocks, especially sedimentary Clastics and especially in hand specimen and in outcrop, on
the basis of such characteristics as colour, structures, mineralogic composition, and grain size.
Moraine – An accumulation of boulders, stones, or other debris carried and deposited by a
glacier. Moraines, which can be subdivided into many different types, are deposits of Glacial Till.
                                                                               s
Lateral Moraines are the ridges of till that mark the sides of the glacier’ path. Terminal
                                                                            s
Moraines are the material left behind by the farthest advance of the glacier’ toe. Each different
period of glaciation leaves behind its own moraines.
Non-Point Source Pollution (NPS) – Pollution discharged over a wide land area rather than
from a specific location. Non-point source pollution actually originates from numerous small
sources. It is quickly spread out and diffused, and it generally infiltrates the soil contaminating
the groundwater or is deposited by runoff into rivers and lakes. NPS is much more difficult to
measure and control than pollution from a specific point such as a sewer drain or a smoke
stack. Agricultural chemicals and exhaust deposits in streets are examples of non-point source
pollution.
Overburden – Any loose unconsolidated material, which has been deposited upon solid rock
(i.e. sand or clay).
Permits to Take Water (PTTW) – Permits issued by the Ministry of the Environment for large-
volume surface or groundwater withdrawals. Permit sets out the location, source maximum
volume, number of days of extraction, expiry date of permit.
Pumping Test – A method used to determine the hydraulic characteristics of an aquifer
whereby water is pumped from a well and the discharge from the well, and the drawdown of the
water level are measured over time. These values are used in an appropriate well flow equation
to quantify the hydraulic characteristics of an aquifer and the capacity of a well.
Recharge – The addition of water to the groundwater system by natural (precipitation and
infiltration) or artificial processes.
Relational Database – A collection of data stored in a number of data tables that are linked by
common relationships that can be easily and efficiently converted into information through
database queries and other operations.
                                                                               s
Runoff – Rainwater that does not infiltrate the soil but flows across the earth’ surface into a
body of water. The proportion of rainwater that penetrates the soil varies considerably


11-2
                                                                                          11. Glossary



depending on soil type and area covered by impervious materials. Runoff has the potential to
“                                           s
 carry” contaminants resting on the earth’ surface into streams, lakes, reservoirs, etc. A
watershed with a high percentage of its area covered by impervious materials (pavement and
buildings) will have a comparatively high rate of runoff. Runoff is especially problematic in
agricultural areas where residues from agricultural chemicals and high concentrations of animal
                       s
waste rest on the earth’ surface.
Till (Glacial) – Unstratified drift, deposited directly by a glacier without reworking by meltwater,
and consisting of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders ranging widely in size and
shape.
Transmissivity – The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer under
a unit hydraulic gradient.
Water Budget - A water budget is general model of the complete hydrological cycle. For this
study, the water budget provides estimates of: the quantity of water cycling through the study
area (average annual precipitation); the quantity of water returned to the atmosphere by
evapotranspiration, the quantity of water contributed annually to surface water resources, and
the quantity of water that contributes to groundwater resources.
Water Resources – The supply of groundwater and surface water in a given area. Water
resources is a general term used to describe all of the usable water in a specific geographical
area.
Water Table – The level of groundwater saturation. The depth of the water table is determined
by the quantity of groundwater and the permeability of the earth material and fluctuates
accordingly. The water table is often the upper surface of an unconfined aquifer.
Watershed – A region or area over which water flows into a particular, lake, reservoir, stream,
or river; a drainage basin. Watersheds are separated by ridges or areas of high ground. The
boundary between two watersheds is a line connecting points of runoff divergence. Generally, a
river or stream runs through a watershed collecting runoff. The stream then flows into another
watershed downstream or into the sea.
Watershed Management – The process of analyzing and maintaining the land and water
resources of a watershed in order to conserve those resources for the benefit of the watershed’s
residents. Since watersheds are defined by natural hydrology, watershed management is the
most logical water conservation approach. Many problems are better solved at the watershed
level than by addressing individual problems within a watershed. Effectively managing a
watershed requires knowledge of it attainable only through thorough research. The watershed’   s
natural resource base, health status, threats, and land use patterns as well as the needs of its
residents must be understood. Good watershed management takes advantage of community
resources and involves cooperation of various community organizations and residents.




                                                                                                 11-3
11. Glossary




       11.2    List of Acronyms
amsl           above mean sea level
AO             Aesthetic Objective
ARDA           Agricultural and Rural Development Act
BTEX           Benzene-Toluene-Ethylbenzene-Xylene (petroleum)
CA             Conservation Authority
CCME           Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CofA           Certificate of Approval
DEM            Digital Elevation Model
DND            Department of National Defense
EC             Environment Canada
ET             Evapotranspiration
FNR            First Nations Reserve
GIS            Geographic Information System
GSC            Geological Survey of Canada
GSCA           Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
GRCA           Grand River Conservation Authority
GUDI           Groundwater Under the Direct Influence (of Surface Water)
GW             Groundwater
ID             Identification
IR             First Nations Reserve
ISI            Intrinsic Susceptibility Index
LPRCA          Long Point Region Conservation Authority
MAC            Maximum Acceptable Concentration
MNDM           Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
MNR            Ministry of Natural Resources
MODFLOW        Modular Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow Model (USGS)
MOE            Ministry of the Environment
MVCA           Maitland Valley Conservation Authority
NRMS           Normalized Root Mean Squared Error
NRVIS          Natural Resource and Values Information System (MNR)
NTU            Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OFA            Ontario Federation of Agriculture
OMAF           Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
PCB            Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PTTW           Permit To Take Water
PWQO           Provincial Water Quality Objectives
SVCA           Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
SW             Surface Water
TCE            Trichloroethylene
TSSA           Technical Standards and Safety Association
TOR            Terms of Reference
TOT            Time of Travel
USGS           United States Geological Survey
UST            Underground Storage Tank
UTM            Universal Transverse Mercator
WHPA           Wellhead Protection Area
WWIS           Water Well Information System
WWTP           Waste Water Treatment Plant


11-4
                                          11. Glossary




     11.3   Units of Measure
cm          centimetres
ha          hectares
igpm        imperial gallons per minute
in          inches
km          kilometres
km 2        square kilometres
L           litre
L/day       litres per day
L/s         litres per second
L/s/m       litres per second per metre
m           metres
m3 /s       cubic metres per second
m3 /day     cubic metres per day
mg/L        milligrams per litre
mm          millimetres
mm/yr       millimetres per year




                                                 11-5
                                                                                    12. References




12     References
     12.1 General References - Regional Hydrogeology
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1997. Canadian Ecodistrict Climate Normals 1961-1990.
(http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/ecostrat/district/climate.html)
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (Water Task Group), 2002. From Source to
Tap: The Multi-Barrier Approach to Safe Drinking Water. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on
Environmental and Occupational Health.
Canadian Parks Service, 1994. Surface Geomorphological Inventory: St. Edmunds Township,
Cabot Head and Islands between Tobermory and Manitoulin. Volume I. Prepared for Candian
Parks Service, Ontario Region by Geomatics International Inc.
Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putman, 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Ontario
Geological Survey, Special Volume 2, 270p.
de Loe, R., 2002. Agricultural Water Use in Ontario by Watershed: Estimates fro 2001.
Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources by Rob de Loe Consulting Services,
Guelph, ON.
Fetter, C.W., 1999. Contaminant Hydrogeology, Second Edition. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.
Ford, D.C. and P.W. Williams, 1989. Karst Geomorphology and Hydrology. UnWin Hyman Ltd.,
London.
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.
Goss, M.J., Rollins, K.S., McEwan, K., Shaw, J.R., Lammers-Helps, H., 2001.   The
Management of Manure in Ontario with Respect to Water Quality. Unpublished report,
University of Guelph.
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., 2000. MODFLOW-2000, The
U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model, User Guide To Modularization Concepts
And The Ground-Water Flow Process. U.S.G.S., Open-File Report 00-92, Reston, Virginia, 121
pp.
Henderson, Paddon & Associates Ltd., 2002. Request for Proposals For Groundwater Studies
2001/2002 For Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater.
Karrow, P.F., 1974. Till Stratigraphy in parts of Southwestern Ontario. Geological Society of
America Bulletin, vol. 85, p. 761-768.
Karrow, P.F., 1973. Bedrock Topography in Southwestern Ontario. Geological Society of
Canada Proceedings, vol. 25, p. 67-76.
                                                     s
National Rivers Authority,1995. Saving Water. The NRA’ Approach to Water Conservation and
Demand Management. A Consultation Report by the National Rivers Authority.
O’Connor, D.R., 2002. Part One: Report of the Walkerton Inquiry: Events of May 2000 and
Related Issues. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1980. Ground-Water Probability of the County of Bruce,
Southern Ontario, Water Resources Branch, Map 3101.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1983. Ground-Water Probability, County of Grey, Water
Resources Branch, Map 3111.



                                                                                             12-1
12. References



Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1991. Waste Disposal Site Inventory. June, 1991.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2001. Groundwater Studies 2001/2002, Technical Terms
of Reference.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2001. Ontario Drinking Water Standards. PIBS #4065e.
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, 1990. Quaternary Geology of the
Durham Area, Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5596.
Q.H.J. Gwyn, 1976. Quaternary Geology and Granular Resources of the Western Part of the
Regional Municipality of Durham (Parts of Uxbridge, Pickering, Reach, and Whitby Townships)
Southern Ontario, Ontario Division of Mines, Geological Branch, Open File Report 5161.
Statistics Canada, 2001. Population data from 2001 Community Profiles. Statistics Canada Web
Site (http://www12.statcan.ca/english/profil01/PlaceSearchForm1.cfm).
Singer, D.N., Cheng, C.K. and M.G. Scafe, 1997. The Hydrogeology of Southern Ontario:
Volume 1, Hydrogeology of Ontario Series, Report 1, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Water Survey of Canada, 2002. Gauging Stations in Grey and Bruce Counties. Daily
Streamflow Data, National Water Data Archive (HYDAT CD-ROM)
Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc, 2002. Proposal for: Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study,
2001/2002.
       12.2 Specific References – By County (Municipality)
                 12.2.1 Bruce County (Arran-Elderslie)
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1986.         Hydrogeologic Investigation for Proposed
Landfill Site: Village of Tara.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1983.           Elderslie Township Landfill Plan of Operation and
Closure, File No. M-1169.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Arran Township Landfill Hydrogeologic Investigation.
Henderson, Paddon & Associates Ltd., 2002.                       s
                                                         Engineer’ Report, Tara Water Works,
Municipality of Arran-Elderslie.
Henderson, Paddon & Associates Ltd., 2002.                  s
                                                    Engineer’ Report, Chesley Water Works,
Municipality of Arran-Elderslie.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1979. Evaluation of Well 3. Village of Tara.
Village of Tara, 1979. Report on the Testing of a New Municipal Well. Village of Tara Water
Supply System.
Water and Earth Science Associates Ltd., 1998. Hydrogeologic Investigation: Former Chesley
Fire Hall. Chesley, Ontario.
                 12.2.2 Bruce County (Brockton)
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2000. The Municipality of Brockton, Lake Rosalind Water
Works, Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2000. The Municipality of Brockton, Powers Subdivision
Water Works (Chepstow Water Works), Engineer's Report
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2000. The Municipality of Brockton, Schmidt Subdivision
Water Works (Geeson Avenue Well), Engineer's Report


12-2
                                                                                   12. References



Golder Associates, 1993. Hydrogeological Investigation - Phase II Greenock Township Landfill
Lot 12, Concession XI, Township of Greenock.
Paragon Engineering Limited. 1987. R.P. Eveready Incorporated formerly Union Carbide
Canada Ltd: Hydrogeological Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Township of Greenock Waste Disposal Site, Lot 12,
Concession XI. Hydrogeologic Assessment and Plan of Operation and Development.
           12.2.3 Bruce County (Huron-Kinloss)
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 1991. Village of Lucknow, Sanitary Sewage Works MOEE
Project No. 03-0175-02, Results of Domestic Well Water Sampling, Fall 1991, Lots 51-58,
Township of Kinloss.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 1994. Village of Lucknow, Sanitary Sewage Works MOEE
Project No. 03-0175-02, Rapid Infiltration System Monitoring (1992-93) Volume I.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 1995. Village of Lucknow, Sanitary sewage Works Rapid
Infiltration System Monitoring, 1994 Volume I.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Township of Huron-Kinloss, Lakeshore Area Water
Works, Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001.      Township of Huron-Kinloss, Whitechurch Water
Works, Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001.       Township of Huron-Kinloss, Village of Ripley,
Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Township of Huron-Kinloss, Lucknow Water Works
Engineer's Report.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1979.       Test Well Evaluation: Lowry Subdivision
Lurgan Beach.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1981. Blair's Grove Test Well Evaluation.
Conestoga Rovers & Associates Limited, 1981. Test Well Evaluation, Huronville, Westerly Lots.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1983. Blair's Grove Test Well Evaluation - Phase II,
Township of Huron.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1988.          Groundwater Availability and Testing
Investigation, Township of Huron.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1981. Well Evaluation Communal System, Township of Huron.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1982. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Site Assessment Township of
Huron Landfill, Township of Huron.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1984. Aquifer Evaluation, Kennedy Subdivision, Township of
Huron.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1986. Well Evaluation: Green Acres Trailer Park, Township of
Huron.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1992. Re-evaluation Huronville South Well Groundwater
Resource Assessment Study, Township of Huron.
Mel-Boshart & Son, 1976. Pumping Test and water quality data in regard to proposed
Subdivision, Huron Township, Lot 9, Lake Range Concession.


                                                                                            12-3
12. References



Morrison Beatty Limited, 1987.          Rapid Infiltration Basin Study, Village of Lucknow,
Comprehensive Report.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Township of Kinloss Waste Disposal Site: Part of Lot 16,
Concession VI, Township of Kinloss, Hydrogeological Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Baier, Laurin and Hunt Proposed Subdivision, Test
Pumping Program and Hydrogeological Assessment, Part Lots 2 and 3, Concession A,
Township of Huron.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1995. Test Pumping Program and Hydrogeological Assessment
PW 4-94 Area D, Fisherman's Cove Tent and Trailer Park.
Terraqua Investigations Limited, 1990. Water Supply Evaluation for a Communal Well, Purvis
Lake Cottage Development.
                 12.2.4 Bruce County (Kincardine)
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Underwood Well Supply,
Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Tiverton Well Supply,
Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Scott's Point Well Supply,
Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Kinhuron Well Supply,
Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Craig-Estrick Well Supply,
Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Lake Huron Highlands
Well Supply, Engineer's Report.
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 2001. Municipality of Kincardine, Port Head Estates Well
Supply, Engineer's Report.
Bruce Nuclear Power Development, 1989. Bruce NPD Conventional Landfill Site, Investigation
of Hydrogeological Conditions, Report No. 89206.
Bruce Nuclear Power Development, 1992. Water Wells Monitoring Program. Volumes 1 and 2.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited. 1977.        Tiverton Subdivision, Well Test Report in
Village of Tiverton Water Supply System.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1980.          Boiler Beach Trailer Park: Test Well
Evaluation.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1981. Well Installation and Pumping Test Results:
Lake Huron Highlands.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1988. Gas and Water Monitoring - 1987, Kincardine
Landfill Sites: Princes Street Site and Valentine Avenue Site.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1990. Conceptual Design of Interim Expansion and
Hydrogeologic Investigation Report: Valentine Ave Landfill Site (Draft Copy).
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1993. Test Pumping Investigation, Inverhuron.




12-4
                                                                                     12. References



Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1994. St. Joseph Till Borehole BH10-94 Valentine
Avenue Landfill Site.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1996.        Report on the 1995 Performance Report:
Groundwater Collection System.
Dixon Hydrogeology Ltd, 1987.         Ontario Hydro - Bruce Energy Centre Groundwater
Investigations - Phase I.
Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, 1975. B.N.P.D. - Radioactive Waste Storage Site
No.1 Geotechnical Investigations 1971-1975, Report No. 75070.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1983.       Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation Sanitary
Landfill, Township of Bruce (Draft).
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1988.     Well Evaluation Proposed Murdock Glen Residential
Development Township of Huron.
International Water Supply Limited, 1974. Briar Hill Subdivision Well (McArthur Well) Tiverton:
Analysis of Pumping Test.
Village of Tiverton. 1978. Village of Tiverton Water Supply System.
           12.2.5 Bruce County (North Bruce Peninsula)
Ainley and Associates Limited, 1978. Sanitary Landfill Utilization Report File 77283, for the
Township of St. Edmunds.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1982. Aquifer Evaluation, Hayes Subdivision, Township of St.
Edmunds.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1983.         Aquifer Evaluation, Forbes Subdivision, (Pike Bay)
Township of Eastnor.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1988.             Aquifer Evaluation, Little Pine Tree Harbour
Subdivision, Township of Lindsay.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990. Hydrogeologic Assessment: Proposed Development
Lookabout Shores Inc, Project No. 9072.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990. Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Evaluation, Rybritt
Subdivision, Township of Eastnor.
Golder Associates, 1982. Subsurface Investigation, Proposed Modifications to Effluent Disposal
Works, Tobermory Area Sanitary Sewage Treatment and Disposal Works, Township of St.
Edmunds, County of Bruce.
Henderson, Paddon & Associates Ltd., 1989.        Hydrogeologic Investigation Landfill Site, St.
Edmunds Township.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1981. Well Evaluation: Proposed Residential Development
Tobermory Lodge & Motels Limited, Township of St. Edmunds.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1985.       Groundwater Potential Evaluation: Pike Bay Area,
Township of Eastnor, M. Forbes.
Knox Martin Kretch Limited, 1992. Hydrogeological Investigation Tobermory Sewage Lagoon
Township of St. Edmunds, County of Bruce, MOE Project No. 03-0859-01, Phase 1 and 2
Preliminary Report for Sewage Works.




                                                                                              12-5
12. References



Paragon Engineering Limited, 1980. Little Pike Bay Township of Eastnor, Ministry of Housing
File No. 41T-74032. Test pumping Program and Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1988. Spry Shores Subdivision: Test Pumping Program and
Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1989. Stokes Bay Shores (Lots 38 and 39, Concession IV,
Township of Eastnor, County of Bruce): Test Pumping Program and Hydrogeologic
Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990. Little Lake Subdivision (Part of Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24,
Concession 3, Lot 24 Concession 4, Parts of Lots 23, 24, and 25, West of Bury Road, Township
of Eastnor, County of Bruce): Test Pumping Program and Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990. Warder Subdivision (Unite 61, R.P. No. D-7, Village of
Lion's Head, County of Bruce): Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990. Westview Acres (Hayes Subdivision), Part of Lot 26,
Concession 5, East of the Bury Road, Village of Lion's Head, County of Bruce. Hydrogeologic
Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990. Pine Ridge Estates (Part Farm Lot 3, West of Bury Road,
Townplot of Bury, Township of Edmunds, County of Bruce), Test Pumping Program and
Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Pine Ridge Estates (Part Farm Lot 3, West of Bury Road,
Townplot of Bury, Township of Edmunds, County of Bruce), Test Pumping Program and
Hydrogeologic Assessment PW2-91.
                 12.2.6 Bruce County (Saugeen Shores)
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1983. Hydrogeologic Study Southampton Landfill.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1987. Hydrogeologic Investigation and Plan of Development
and Operation, Southampton Landfill (revised).
Golder Associates, 1983. Borehole Records for Proposed Landfill Site in Port Eglin. Lakespray
Developments Inc, 1997. Performance Report: Miramichi Shores Water System.
Lakespray Developments Inc., 1998. Miramichi Shores Water System: Performance Report
1997.
Lakespray Developments Inc., 1999. Miramichi Shores Water System: Performance Report
1998.
Lakespray Developments Inc., 2000. Miramichi Shores Water System: Performance Report
1999.
Lakespray Developments Inc., 2001. Quarterly Performance Report: Miramichi Shores
Subdivision Water System. For January 1, 2001 to March 31, 2001.
Lakespray Developments Inc., 2001. Miramichi Shores Water System: Performance Report
2000.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1981.       Hydrogeological Impact Assessment - Proposed Landfill
Extension: Town of Port Eglin.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1983. Addendum Report on "Hydrogeological Impact Assessment
Proposed Landfill Extension Town of Port Eglin".




12-6
                                                                                  12. References



Paragon Engineering Limited, 1984. Lord Elgin Estates (Part Los 43 to 50 Lake Range
Township of Saugeen): Test Drilling Program and Hydrogeologic Assessment - Water table
Aquifer.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1987. The George Burt Education Centre: Canadian Auto
Workers: Test Drilling Program and Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990.     Miramichi Shores: Design Report on Water Supply,
Treatment and Distribution.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990.     Miramichi Shores: Design Report on Water Supply,
Treatment and Distribution.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1990.        Miramichi Shores: Test Pumping Program and
Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. C.A.W. - T.C.A Canadian Family Education Centre: Test
Drilling and Hydrogeologic Assessment PW4-89/PW5-89.
           12.2.7 Bruce County (South Bruce)
B.M. Ross and Associates Limited, 1999. Teeswater-Culross Landfill Site: Status Report 1997
and 1998, Volume 1 – Report.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1985.          Carrick-Mildmay Landfill, Township of Carrick,
Hydrogeologic Investigation Revised.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1979. Report on, and Evaluation of, Municipal Well, Village of
Mildmay.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1980.      Proposed Fish Hatchery Community of Formosa,
Township of Carrick.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1980. Well Evaluation Formosa Spring water Company Ltd,
Community of Formosa, Township of Carrick.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1989. Formosa Brewery: Wastewater Disposal evaluation and
Hydrogeologic Assessment (Draft).
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1993. Palace Gardens Formosa Water Taking Operation
(Hamlet of Formosa, Township of Culross, County of Bruce): Hydrogeologic Assessment.
R.J. Burnisde & Associates Limited, 2000. Engineer's Report for the Municipality of South
Bruce: Mildmay Water System. MOE File No. W00651.2.
Trow, Dames and Moore, 1988. Hydrogeologic Investigation Teeswater Sanitary Landfill Site,
Lot 9 Concession VII Township of Culross.
           12.2.8 Bruce County (South Bruce Peninsula)
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1982.       Aquifer Evaluation Daciw and Graham Subdivision
Township of Amabel, Phase III.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1989.         Water Supply Interference Investigation, Sauble
Amusement, Township of Amabel.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990.       Aquifer Evaluation and Soils Investigation, Gildner
Subdivision Township of Amabel.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Hydrogeological Evaluation, Proposed Senior Citizens
Apartment, Pt. Lot 26, Concession "D", Township of Amabel.


                                                                                           12-7
12. References



Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Aquifer Evaluation Car Wash - Frank Field, Pt Lot 26,
Concession "C", Township of Amabel.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Groundwater and Soil Evaluation, Proposed Rallis
Subdivision Lot 37, Concession D, Township of Amabel.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Aquifer Evaluation - Well W3, Huron Wood Subdivision,
Township of Amabel.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1983. Sauble River Camp, Report on Quality,
Quantity and Security of Existing Drilled Well Water Supply.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Hydrogeologic Site Assessment, Gremik East
Subdivision Part Lot 33, Concession D, Amabel Township, MMA File: 41T89022.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Hydrogeologic Site Assessment, Eagle Ridge
Estates, Lot 21, Concession C, Amabel Township.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Test Pumping and Chemical Analysis, Huron
Woods, Subdivision Wells 1 and 2.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                     s
(Robins #3), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                          s
(Huron Woods #7), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                    s
(Trask #6), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                       s
(Winburk #10), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                     s
(Forbes #5), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                      s
(Gremik #11), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                   s
(Fedy #4), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001.    Former Township of Amabel Waterworks
                         s
(Fiddlehead #1), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                      s
(Foreman #8), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                      s
(Thomson #9), Engineer’ Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001. Former Township of Amabel Water Works
                                   s
(Cammidge and Collins #2), Engineer’ Report.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1977.    Aquifer Evaluation, Township of Amabel, Captain
Developments Ltd.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1978.   Groundwater Availability Study, Silver Lake Woods
Subdivision, Township of Amabel.




12-8
                                                                                     12. References



Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1985.      Test Drilling and Well Evaluation, Sauble Beach,
Township of Amabel.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1990. Well Evaluation, Woodland Trailer Park, Sauble Beach,
Township of Amabel.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1979. Walker Subdivision (Proposed 120 lot development part of
lot 28 Township of Amabel - Sauble beach - Ministry of Housing File No. 41t-79121): Test
Drilling Program and Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1979. Schell Road Development (Winskill Subdivision) (38 Lot
Subdivision Lot 49, Concession D, Township of Amabel, County of Bruce) Test Drilling Program
and Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1981. Hydrogeologic Assessment, Existing Drilled Well, Winburk
Subdivision (Sauble Beach).
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1981. Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Water table Aquifer,
Burton Subdivision (Part of Lot 30, Concession "C", Township of Amabel, Sauble Beach.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1983. Cammidge/Collins Subdivision Phase II, Township of
Amabel, Hydrogeologic Assessment - PW2-84.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1984.      Cammidge/Collins Subdivision, Township of Amabel,
Hydrogeologic Assessment - PW2-84.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1985.         Carson's Camp, Sauble Beach, Hydrogeologic
Assessment PW 2-85.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1989. Walker Estates, (Part of Lot 20 Concession D, Township
of Amabel, County of Bruce) Hydrogeologic Assessment TW 3-88.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1989. McLeod/Aiken Subdivision, Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Hay Island Development: (Township of Albemarle, County
of Bruce) Preliminary Hydrogeologic Assessment).
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Township of Amabel Waste Disposal Site: Hydrogeologic
Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Township of Amabel: Waste Disposal Site (Part Lot 43,
Concession C, Township of Amabel), Hydrogeologic Assessment Phase II.
           12.2.9 Grey County (Chatsworth)
Beatty Franz and Associates, 1995. 1994 Monitoring Program, Holland Landfill Site.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1988. Aquifer Evaluation, Lutheranch Pt. Lot 14, Concession
9 Township of Holland.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1989.          Hydrogeological Evaluation of Class 4 Sewage
Treatment Capacity.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Aquifer Evaluation of BNR Equipment Ltd.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1979.         Pineview Heights Subdivision, Report on
Ground Water Supply for Individual Well Servicing.
                                                     s
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Walter’ Falls Water Supply Upgrading Project
Class Environmental Assessment, Township of Holland.




                                                                                              12-9
12. References



Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Aquifer Evaluation Report, Walter's Falls Water
Supply, Township of Holland.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1992. Mair Pit Extension, Hydrogeologic Assessment
Lot 23 & 24, Conc. VIII, Sullivan Township.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001.       Walter's Falls Water Works, Township of
Chatsworth.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001.         Chatsworth Water Works, Township of
Chatsworth.
Ministry of the Environment, 1975. Village of Chatsworth, Ground Water Survey.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1981. Phase I Preliminary Study of Hydrogeologic Impacts, Township
of Holland Landfill.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1982. Phase II Study of Hydrogeologic Impacts, Township of Holland
Landfill.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1983. Report on Phase II Test Drilling/Well Construction Program in
the Village of Chatsworth.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1983. Report on A Test Drilling Well Construction Program in the
Village of Chatsworth.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1987. 1985-1986 Monitoring Report, Township of Holland Landfill.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1990. 1990 Monitoring Report, Township of Holland Landfill.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1983.       Moto Park, Hydrogeologic Assessment and Servicing
Evaluation.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1984. Platt Subdivision, Township of Holland, Test Drilling
Program and Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1988. Proposed Residential - Plaza Development.
                 12.2.10 Grey County (Georgian Bluffs)
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1980. Water Supply Evaluation for the Proposed Ponderosa
Steak House and the Grey County Mall.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Inspection Report (1993) Wastewater Treatment Works,
Township of Derby.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Water Supply Evaluation for the Proposed Burger King
and the Grey County Mall.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984.          Township of Derby Wastewater Treatment Works
Expansion, Hydrogeologic Evaluation.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1985. Aquifer Evaluation Jim Howe Apartments Village of
Shallow Lake.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1985. Proposed Subdivision Falcon Investments (Kitchener)
Ltd Mr. and Mrs. J. Deutschmann Lot 6, Jones Range, Township of Keppel.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1986. Aquifer Evaluation, Ralph Gowing Property, Township
of Sarawak.




12-10
                                                                                12. References



Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1986. Impact Assessment of Proposed Sutherland Quarry on
Surface Water and Groundwater.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1989. Aquifer Evaluation of Springmount Subdivision.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1989. Aquifer Evaluation of Proposed Mountain Lake
Subdivision, Part lots 17 and 18, Concession 18.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990. Carleton Severance, Application for Consent Nos.
B1462/89, B1463/89,B1464/89,B1465/89,B1466/89.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990. Aquifer Evaluation Carleton Severance, Township of
Keppel.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990. Aquifer Evaluation and Soils Investigation, Proposed
Residential Subdivision.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Inspection Report of Wastewater Treatment Works,
Township of Derby.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1992. Rehabilitation and Maintenance Report, Wastewater
Treatment Works, Township of Derby.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1992.          Christopher's Christmas Tree Family Camp,
Development Report.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1994.       Inspection Report (1993), Wastewater Treatment
Works, Township of Derby.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 2001. Engineer's Report for Waterworks: Maplecrest
Subdivision Water System, MOE Water Works No. 220007089, Township of Georgian Bluffs
(Former Township of Derby).
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 2001. Engineer's Report for Waterworks: Forest Heights
Water System, MOE Water Works No. 220007720, Township of Georgian Bluffs (Former
Township of Derby).
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 2001. Engineer's Report for Waterworks: Shallow Lake Water
System, MOE Water Works No. 220009096, Township of Georgian Bluffs (Former Township of
Keppel).
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 2001. Engineer's Report for Waterworks: Pottawatomi Village
Water System: MOE Water Works No. 22008300, Township of Georgian Bluffs (Former
Township of Derby).
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1981. Township of Keppel - Sanitary Landfill Site
(Annual Monitoring).
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1986. Report on Proposed Communal Groundwater
Supply, Treatment, Pumping and Distribution System; Forest Heights Subdivision, Derby
Township.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1986. Report on Proposed Communal Groundwater
Supply, Treatment, Pumping, and Distribution System, Forest Heights Subdivision, Derby
Township.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1987. Preliminary Report on Communal Groundwater
Supply for Proposed Subdivision Part Lots 3 and 4, East Half Mile Strip, Township of Derby.




                                                                                        12-11
12. References



Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1987.        Aquifer Evaluation of Pottawatomi Village
Subdivision, Township of Derby.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1987. Township of Keppel Sanitary Landfill Site; 1987
Monitoring Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1989. Aquifer Evaluation Report, Owen Sound area
Office, Ontario Hydro.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1989.        Evaluation of the Water System, Forest
Heights Subdivision Township of Derby.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Hydrogeologic Assessment Doug Ball
Subdivision Lot 15, Concession 2, Township of Keppel.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1992. 1991 Annual Report on Landfill Development,
Operation and Monitoring, Township of Keppel.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1993. 1992 Annual Report on Landfill Development,
Operation and Monitoring, Township of Keppel Landfill.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1993. Groundwater Monitoring of the Sutherland
Quarry, Lot 23, Concession 10.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1980. Hydrogeologic Impact Study, Keppel Township Landfill.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1988. Proposed Residential - Plaza Development.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Community of Oxenden (Zone 4), Water Supply Needs
Study.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1991. Village of Shallow Lake, Groundwater Evaluation Report.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1994.        Kramer Subdivision, Test Pumping Program and
Hydrogeologic Assessment.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1995. Community of Oxenden, Communal Water Distribution
System (Volume 1).
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1995. Community of Oxenden, Communal Water Distribution
System (Volume 2).
Terraprobe Limited, 1994. Stage I Ground Water Availability Study, Village of Shallow Lake.
                 12.2.11 Grey County (Grey Highlands)
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1981. Aquifer Evaluation Individual Water Supplies Beaver
Heights Subdivision Phase IV, Township of Osprey.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Osprey Township Landfill Hydrogeologic Investigation
and Plan of Operation.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1989. Water Supply Evaluation Peters Subdivision , Lake
Eugenia, Township or Artemesia.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1990. Site Operation and Hydrogeological Investigation:
Osprey Township Landfill Site, Licensing of Dundalk Cells.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1992. Progress Report (1991) Development and Operation,
Osprey Landfill Site, Township of Osprey.




12-12
                                                                                   12. References



Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1993. Annual Progress Report (1992) Development and
Operation Artemesia Landfill Site Township of Artemesia.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1995.         Hydrogeological Report, Proposed Miller Quarry,
County of Grey, Highways Department.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1998. Annual Monitoring Report (1995, 1996 and 1997),
Euphrasia Quarry, County of Grey, Highways Department.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1981.        Village of Markdale, Report on Sewage
Treatment Facilities.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1981.        Mackey Subdivision Report on Proposed
Individual Ground Water Well Supplies.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1988. Village of Flesherton, Environmental Study
Report, Sewage Works Report, Phases I and II, Appendixes.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Township of Euphrasia, Kimberley/Amik Water
Supply Report on Exploration and Groundwater Resource Evaluation.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Aquifer Evaluation Report, Talisman Mountain
Resorts Ltd, Lot 7, Concession 5, Euphrasia Township.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.              Groundwater Exploration Program
Kimberley/Amik Water Supply Status Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1991.          Hydrogeologic Assessment, Proposed
Development, Beaver Valley Ski Club.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1993. Environmental Study Report, Kimberly-Amik-
Talisman, Water Supply Project.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1994. Underground Storage Tank No.2, Hamlet of
Kimberly, County Road 13 and Centre Street, Township of Euphrasia.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1996. Village of Markdale, Report on Sewage
Treatment Facilities, 1995 Monitoring and Operations Report.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 2001.         Kimberley-Amik-Talisman Water Supply,
Municipality of Grey Highlands.
Hydrology Consultants Limited, 1973. Report on Test Drilling Program, Village of Markdale.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1974. Aquifer Evaluation, Beaver Heights Subdivision, Township
of Osprey.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1979. Report on a Well Evaluation, Valley View Acres, Township
of Euphrasia.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1983.       Groundwater Evaluation, Proposed Residential
Development, Beaver Valley Ski Club, Township of Artmesia.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1989.     Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation Proposed
Residential Development, Community of Eugenia, Township of Artmesia.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1990. Groundwater Potential Evaluation Proposed Residential
Development, Township of Euphrasia.
Ministry of the Environment, 1978. Investigation of Springs Contamination, Lot 26, Concession
II, Euphrasia Township.



                                                                                             12-13
12. References



Ministry of the Environment, 1980. A Feasibility Study of Renovation of Sewage Lagoon
Effluent By Rapid Infiltration, Village of Markdale.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1979. Progress Report Hydrogeologic Impact Study, Township of
Artemesia Landfill.
The Lathem Group Inc., 1981.          Hydrologic/Hydrogeologic Appraisal, Epping Commons
Development.
William Trow Associates Ltd., 1966.      Subsoil Survey, Proposed Sewer Project Village of
Markdale, O.W.R.C. Project 66-S-199.
                 12.2.12 Grey County (Hanover)
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1986. Stage I: Report, Town of Hanover.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1987. Addendum No.1, Stage I: Report, Town of
Hanover.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1987. Stage II: Report, Town of Hanover.
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Limited, 1992. MOE Direct Grant Project No. 07-0487,
Monitoring Program Data and Analysis Report, Town of Hanover.
Gartner Lee Limited, 1989. Hydrogeological Investigation at the Hanover Transformer Station.
Hydrology Consultants Limited, 1983. Hydrogeological Investigation, Hanover Sanitary Landfill
Site.
Hydrology Consultants Limited, 1984. Addendum 1, Hydrogeological Investigation, Hanover
Sanitary Landfill Site.
International Water Supply Limited, 1986. Construction and Testing of Well No. 2, Project 7-
0478, Contract 1, Town of Hanover.
Town of Hanover, 2001. Town of Hanover, Engineer's Report.
                 12.2.13 Grey County (Meaford)
Ainley & Associates Limited, 1992. Town of Meaford: Centre Street Solid Waste Disposal Site,
1988 Annual Report.
Ainley & Associates Limited, 1987.         Environmental Assessment for the Establishment,
Operation and Closure of A Landfilling Site in the Township of St. Vincent.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Regional Hydrogeological Assessment Site Selection
Report, Township of St. Vincent and Town of Meaford Waste Management Study.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1989.            Groundwater and Soils Evaluation Proposed
Schleissner Subdivision Part Lot 3, Concession 1, Township of St. Vincent.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1992. Water Supply Evaluation for Van Dolder Lot
Severances Pt Lot 33, Concession C, Township of Sydenham.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1994. Water Supply Evaluation Rogers/Grange Subdivision
Part Lot 22, Concession 9, Township of St. Vincent File No. 42T-90015.
Gartner Lee Limited, 1990.       Centre Street Landfill Site, 1989 Monitoring Report Town of
Meaford.
Gartner Lee Limited, 1992.       Centre Street Landfill Site, 1991 Monitoring Report Town of
Meaford.



12-14
                                                                                   12. References



Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1989. Hydrogeologic Assessment Bayview Heights
Subdivision, Part Lot 18, Concession XI, St. Vincent Township.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990. Hydrogeologic Site Assessment: Dave Young
Subdivision, Sydenham Township, Lot 8, Concession 10.
Henderson, Paddon & Associates Ltd., 1990. Hydrogeologic Site Assessment: Sydenham Mills
Subdivision, Grey County, Sydenham Township, Lot 9, Concession 10. Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, File No. 42T-88027.
Hydrology Consultants Limited., 1976. Hydrogeologic Investigation of a proposed Sanitary
landfill site in Lots 27 and 28, Concession B, Township of Sydenham.
Hydrology Consultants Limited., 1978. Report on a Supplementary Hydrogeologic Investigation:
Genoe Farm, Lots 27 and 28, Concession B, Township of Sydenham.
Hydrology Consultants Limited., 1978. Report on a Supplementary Hydrogeologic Investigation:
Genoe Farm, Lots 27 and 28, Concession B, Township of Sydenham.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1981. Hydrogeologic Impact Study, Proposed Landfill, Township of
Sydenham.
            12.2.14 Grey County (Owen Sound)
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1994. 1993 Annual Report on Landfill Development
Operation and Monitoring, Genoe Landfill.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1999. 1998 Annual Report, Landfill Development,
Operation and Monitoring, Genoe Landfill, Project No.: 91707.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.        Subsurface Investigation, Former Easthill
Landfill Site.
            12.2.15 Grey County (Southgate)
Ainley & Associates Limited, 1983.       Preliminary Hydrogeologic Site Assessment Proposed
Sanitary Landfill: Township of Proton.
D.J. Peach and Associates Ltd., 1992. Well Evaluation, Sun Crest Acres Campground Part Lot
25, Concession 18, Township of Egremont.
England Naylor Engineering Limited, 1990. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Investigation, R.H.
McLean Estate Development Part Lot 43, Concession II Egremont Township, Grey County for
Boida Holdings.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1991. Aquifer Evaluation, Sunset Bay Mobile Home Park
Expansion, Township of Proton.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1992. Water Supply Evaluation, Fairlee Fruit Juice, Township
of Proton.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1984. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation, Sanitary Landfill,
Township of Egremont.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1987. Hydrogeological Evaluation Sanitary Landfill: Township of
Egremont, Grey County, Compilation of Reports.
Paragon Engineering Limited, 1983.       Cycle Sport, Preliminary Hydrogeologic and Sewage
Treatment and Disposal Assessment.




                                                                                           12-15
12. References



Terraqua Investigations Limited, 1992. Hydrogeological Investigation of the Dundalk Landfill
Site, Dundalk, Proton Township.
Triton Engineering Services Limited, 2001. Corporation of the Township of Southgate, Drinking
Water Protection Regulation: Engineer's Report, Village of Dundalk Water System.
                 12.2.16 Grey County (The Blue Mountains)
C.C. Tatham and Associates Ltd., 1995. Township of Collingwood, Georgian Triangle Apples
(Apple Valley) Waste Treatment Facility Design Brief.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Water Supply Evaluation for Proposed Burger King and
the Grey County Mall.
Jagger Hims Limited, 1990. Preliminary Hydrogeological Evaluation, Proposed Oaklane
Residential Development, Collingwood Township.
Jagger Hims Limited, 1995. Hydrogeological Report, Proposed Sand and Gravel Extraction
from above the water table.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1979.       Well Analysis and Hydraulic Calculations
Georgian Shore Motel, Twp of Collingwood.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1979.       Mountain Bay Apartments Condominium
Conversion Report on Water Supply System.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1987. Aquifer Evaluation Faircrest Lane Subdivision,
Township of Collingwood.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1987. Aquifer Evaluation Faircrest Lane Subdivision,
Township of Collingwood.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume I.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume V, Heritage Group Property.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume IV, Georgianview II,III,IV Properties.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume III, Delphi Point Property.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume II, Bauer Property.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume IX, 811504 ONT. Ltd Property.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume VII, Phoebus Property.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume VI, Peaks Bay I & II Properties.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1990.       Camperdown Area Hydrogeologic Study,
Volume VIII, Probert Property.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1981. Soils Investigation Township of Collingwood Sanitary
Landfill Site.



12-16
                                                                                    12. References



Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1991. Well Evaluation Maple Springs Bottled Water Operation,
Township of Collingwood.
           12.2.17 Grey County (West Grey)
D.J. Peach & Associates Ltd., 1983. Draft Two: Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation, Town of
Durham Sanitary Landfill.
D.J. Peach & Associates Ltd., 2001. Engineer's Report for the Durham Municipal Water Works:
Corporation of the Township of West Grey.
Fieldholme Engineering Inc., 1983. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Evaluation, Sanitary Landfill Site
Township of Bentinck.
Fletcher Associates, 1988. Extension to Waste Disposal Site, Village of Neustadt, Provisional
Certificate of Approval a 261001.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1984. Normandy Township Landfill.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1985. Aquifer Evaluation, Gehiere Subdivision, Township of
Normanby.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1985.             Normanby Township Landfill Hydrogeologic
Investigation Revised.
Gamsby and Mannerow Limited, 1993. Hydrogeological Investigation Interforest Ltd., Township
of Bentinck.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1989.         Hydrogeologic Investigation at Town of
Durham Waste Disposal Site.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1993.        Hydrogeologic Assessment, Potential For
Groundwater Contamination, Lawrence Pit.
Henderson, Paddon and Associates Ltd., 1995. Town of Durham Landfill Site, Summary of
Hydrogeology and Recommendations for Further Work.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1978. Report on Groundwater Potential Proposed Trailer Camp,
Township of Normanby.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1986. Groundwater Evaluation Proposed Expansion to Trailer
Park, Township of Bentinck.
Ian D. Wilson Associates Ltd., 1987.      Well Evaluation River Ranch Trailer Park, Twp of
Bentinck.
International Water Supply Limited, 1986. Town of Durham Report, Construction and Testing
Well 1A and 1B.
Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, 1995. The Future Group, Hydrogeological Investigation
Report and Preliminary Septic Bed Design Commercial Development Highway No. 4 Bentinck
Township.
KMK Consultants Ltd., 2001. Engineer's Report for the Groundwater Supply System in the
Township of West Grey: Neustadt Groundwater Supply System.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1989. Hydrogeologic Report, Phase II for the Village of Neustadt
Landfill.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1991. Hydrogeologic Study, Village of Neustadt Sewage Lagoons.
Morrison Beatty Limited, 1991. Hydrogeologic Study, Village of Neustadt Sewage Lagoons.


                                                                                            12-17
12. References



Quantum Inspection and Testing Ltd., 1991.       Hydrogeologic Investigation Part Lot 3,
Concession 4 Township of Glenelg for Lloyd and Karen Davis.
Township of Bentinck, 1976. Aquifer Evaluation Durham Mobile Homes and Park Ltd, Township
of Bentinck.
Township of Normanby, 1982. Addendum to Well Evaluation Proposed Campground, Township
of Normanby.
Township of Normanby, 1982. Well Evaluation Proposed Campground, Township of Normanby.
Trow, Dames and Moore, 1990. Phase I Report Development of a new Municipal Supply
System Village of Neustadt, M.O.E project No. 07-3003-01.
Trow, Dames and Moore, 1991. Phase II Report: Test Well Construction and Aquifer Testing
for the Development of a New Municipal Water Supply System, Village of Neustadt.
Trow, Dames and Moore, 1992. Phase III Hydrogeological Report on the Development of a
new Municipal Water Supply Construction and Testing of TW3, Village of Neustadt.




12-18
Appendix A
ISI Process Sheet
                                                                        Appendix A. ISI Calculations




Appendix A - Process Sheet for Calculating Intrinsic Susceptibility
Theory

Mapping of the groundwater susceptibility should be undertaken using the MOE Water
Well Information System (WWIS) as a primary data source. Vulnerability mapping is a
tool that can be used to make planning decisions to protect groundwater resources.
The susceptibility of an aquifer to contamination is a function of the susceptibility of its
recharge area to the infiltration of contaminants, which can be evaluated using an
Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI).

ISI is calculated on a well-by-well basis by summing the product of the thickness of
each unit (b) in the well log and a corresponding K-factor (see Schedule C of the MOE
Terms of Reference or Table A1 below), as represented in following the equation. The
thickness (b) used is from the ground surface to the water table for the shallow
unconfined aquifer system and from the ground surface to the top of any lower
confined aquifer.


       ISI = å1 bi · K F i
                   i


where:
  · i = the number of geologic units recorded in the water well record (borehole)
  · b = the thickness of each geologic unit recorded in the water well record.
  · KF = the Representative K-Factor as outlined in the MOE Terms of Reference:

Calculation
The ISI is calculated step-by-step, for each borehole, as follows:
   1. Determine the location of the water table in the borehole,
   2. Determine the geologic unit in the borehole which contains the water table,
   3. Determine the type of material (aquifer / aquitard) in this unit:
           a. If aquifer material (sand, gravel), then the aquifer is UNCONFINED,
           b. If not, determine if the aquifer is CONFINED,
   4. Continue sequentially through the underlying units of the borehole until the
      aquitard bottom is found (top of aquifer):
           a. If the aquitard bottom is greater than 4 metres below the water table, the
              aquifer is CONFINED,
           b. If not, the aquifer is UNCONFINED,
   5. Calculate ISI, where the total depth to the first significant aquifer is:
           a. For an UNCONFINED aquifer, from ground surface to the water table,
           b. For a CONFINED aquifer, from ground surface to the bottom of the
              aquitard.
   6. Multiply each borehole’s geologic unit thickness by the associated K-Factor to
      create the K-Product.
   7. Sum all the K-Product values for each borehole to create the ISI-Total for each
      well.
                                                                                            Appendix A. ISI Calculations



     8. For Grey and Bruce Counties, change the ISI-Total Value of wells that fall in a
         karst feature’s area to 20
     9. Change area with and overburden thickness of less than 6.0 meters to an ISI
         values of 20.
     10. Class ISI values as HIGH (<30), INTERMEDIATE (30-80) and LOW (>80)
     11. Assign a category to each class: HIGH=1, INTERMEDIATE=2, LOW=3
     12. Grid categories using Natural Neighbour (25 m aggregation, 50 m cell size,
         orange=1, yellow=2, green=3).
     13. Plot ISI map at 1:100,000 scale.
     14. Overlay data points used for interpolation.


Table A1          Generic Representative Permeability (K-Factor)
                 Geomaterial                        Representative            K-Value                  Highest
                                                       K-Factor                 (m/s)                  K-Value
                                                   (dimensionless)*         @75% range**                (m/s)
                  Gravel                                                     1.00E-01
      Weathered dolomite/limestone                                           1.00E-06
                                                            1                                              0.1
                   Karst                                                     1.00E-03
             Permeable basalt                                                1.00E-03
                   Sand                                     2                1.00E-2                    1.00E-2
              Peat (organics)                                                1.00E-3
                Silty sand                                                   1.00E-4
   Weathered clay (<5m below surface                                         1.00E-4**
                                                            3                                           1.00E-3
  Shrinking/fractured & aggregated clay                                      1.00E-4**
  Fractured igneous & metamorphic rock                                       1.00E-5
             Weathered shale                                                 1.00E-5***
                    Silt                                                     1.00E-6
                  Loess                                     4                1.00E-6                    1.00E-6
            Limestone/dolomite                                               1.00E-6
          Weathered/fractured till                                           1.00E-7
          Diamicton (sandy, silty)                                           1.00E-7***
                                                            5                                           1.00E-7
          Diamicton(silty, clayey)                                           1.00E-8***
                sandstone                                                    1.00E-7
                  Clay till                                                  1.00E-9***
                                                            8                                           1.00E-9
        Clay (unweathered marine)                                            1.00E-10
 Unfractured igneous & metamorphic rock                     9                1.00E-13                  1.00E-13

 *    Representative K-Factors are relative number and do not correspond directly to the exponent or index of the
     observed K-Values for the geomaterial in the group.
 ** Correspondence with descriptors of observed K-Values in Freeze & Cherry 1979. Derived using the length of
     the line to determine the 75% value and rounding to the highest K-Value.
 *** Estimated value based on field studies in Ontario.

 Note: When actual study data is available, this chart should be used to assign the corresponding K-Values for
       locally defined geomaterial (e.g. Maryhill Till) and then apply the appropriate Representative K-Factor in
       the calculation of the index of the groundwater intrinsic susceptibility to contamination.

Schedule C of the MOE Terms of Reference, November 2001.
Appendix B
Large Groundwater Users Survey
Appendix B:      Results of Large PTTW Holder Survey for Grey and Bruce Counties

Large PTTW       Original Owner       Location              PTTW         Water            Water Use                   Average daily        Max Permit
                                                                                                                               3                  3
Holder                                                      No.          Source                                     flowrate (m /day)      Flow (m /d)
Craigleith Ski   (same)               Town of The Blue      80-P-1022    Georgian Bay     Snow making                   Dec to Feb          6546.24
Club                                  Mountains                          and spring-fed                                max 225 gpm
                                                                         pond                                          2-10 hrs/day
                                                                                                                      0-5 days/week
                                                                                                                        depends on
                                                                                                                         weather
Georgian         (same)               Township of           01-P-1036    Ponds            Aggregate washing             May to Oct            3273
Aggregates &                          Clearview             01-P-1036                                               10-11 hr/d, 5 d/wk       21821
Construction                          (Simcoe County)                                                                 2500-3000 gpm
Inc.             Seeley & Arnill                            96-P-5019    Quarry water     Dewatering of quarry      250 gpm – Pump1         1636.56
                                                            96-P-5019    (pumped into     recycled into wash         84 gpm – Pump2         549.884
                                                            96-P-5019    wash ponds)      ponds                      pump year-round        3273.12
E.C. King        (same)               Chapel’s Pit,         77-P-1051    Pond             Aggregate washing           Pond used 8-9          2620.8
Contracting                           Town of Saugeen       (municipal                                                 months/year
Ltd.                                  Shores                water for    Well             Domestic use only             Small flows
                                                            ready-                                                       unknown
                                                            mix)
                 (same)               Clarksburg Pit,       76-P-1016    Pond             Aggregate washing          Pond used 8-9            1698
                                      Town of The Blue                                                                 months/year
                                      Mountains                          Well             Ready-mix & orchard          Well pumps
                                                                                          irrigation                 2500gal / week
                 Walter Mair          Mair’s Pit,           90-P-1013    Spring-fed       Aggregate washing         No water taking for      1363.8
                 (Fiegrist Haulage)   Township of                        pond                                           14 years
                 before 1990          Chatsworth
                 (same)               Sarawak Pit,          99-P-1225    Quarry water     Dewatering of quarry      Quarry dewatered          6480
                                      Township of                                                                     every 5-6 years
                                      Georgian Bluffs                    Quarry water     Aggregate washing            No aggregate
                                                                                                                    washing for 12 yrs
Wayne            (same)               Township of           01-P-1106    Groundwater-     Aggregate washing         June to September        818.28
Schwartz                              Chatsworth                         fed pond                                       500gal/min
Construction                          (Former Sullivan                                                                  8 hours/day
Limited                               Township)                                                                       3-4 days/month
Robert A.        (same)               Town of The Blue      84-P-1004    Spring           Feeds two fish hatchery    Continuous flow
Livingstone                           Mountains                                           ponds
Alvis Fogels,    Springhills Trout    Township of           79-P-1207    Spring (on       Feeds two indoor          Flow is variable (90    7855.488
Springhills      Farm                 Chatsworth (Former                 escarpment)      buildings                  to 2000 gpm, avg
Trout Farm                            Village of Holland)                                                              300-800 gpm)



                                                                                                                                                         B-1
Appendix B:         Results of Large PTTW Holder Survey for Grey and Bruce Counties (continued)

Large PTTW            Original Owner      Location                PTTW No.       Water            Water Use                Average daily     Max Permit
Holder                                                                           Source                                      flowrate           Flow
                                                                                                                                3                 3
                                                                                                                             (m /day)          (m /d)
MNR/Chatsworth        MNR                 Township of             71-P-0158      Two springs      Used for fish culture    Summer flows       6546.24
Fish Culture                              Chatsworth              (main                                                    200-300 gpm
Station                                   (Former Sullivan        station?)
                                          Township)               73-P-0153      Well             Used for fish culture   Aug to mid-May      9819.36
                                                                  (substation)                                              1500 gpm
                                                                                                                            24 hrs/day
Bryan Van Den         (same)              Priceville,             99-P-1271      Well             Not in use              Pump capacity        982.08
Bosch                                     Township of Grey                                                                   150 gpm
                                          Highlands
Glenbriar Bottled     Dave George,        Municipality of South   91-P-0007      Well             Never used                 No pump           201.6
Water Co. Ltd.        Glenbriar Bottled   Bruce
(sold to local        Water Co. Ltd.      (between Teeswater
farmer)                                   and Formosa)
Sandy Gott,           Alex Plomp          Feversham,              00-P-1365      Well 1 & 3       Commercial use –        Use up to max       1309.248
Aquafarms 93                              Township of Grey        00-P-1365                       drinking water           permitted rate      981.936
                                          Highlands               00-P-1365                                                  24 hrs/day
                                                                                                                            7 days/week
                                                                                                                          12 months/year
                                                                                 Well 2           Commercial use –        Use up to max       174.566
                                                                                                  drinking water           permitted rate
                                                                                                                            0-12 hrs/day
                                                                                                                          0-6 days/week
                                                                                                                          12 months/year
                                                                  77-P-1011      3 wells          See 00-P-1365           See 00-P-1365       35747.42
                                                                  77-P-1011                                                                     216.0
                                                                  77-P-1011      Spring           Not in use                 Not in use         324.0
Frank Beirnes         (same)              Township of             93-P-0060      Spring-fed       Potential use for          Not in use        454.6
                                          Chatsworth                             stream           bottled water
                                                                                 2 test wells     Pumping tests           Tested at 50 gpm
                                                                                 (near spring)                              and 20 gpm
Trillium Springs      Constructed in      Township of             82-P-1009      Pond (flows      Fish hatchery             500 gal/min       654.624
Fish Farm             1960’s, bought      Chatsworth (Former      82-P-1009      through indoor                              (permitted)      3273.12
                      and renamed in      Village of Holland)     98-P-1101      facility and
                      1980’s                                      98-P-1101      discharges)




                                                                                                                                                          B-2
Appendix B:         Results of Large PTTW Holder Survey for Grey and Bruce Counties (continued)

Large PTTW            Original Owner       Location               PTTW        Water            Water Use                Average daily        Max Permit
                                                                                                                                 3
Holder                                                            No.         Source                                  flowrate (m /day)         Flow
                                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                               (m /d)
Lake Huron            Port Elgin’s old     Upper Avenue in        85-P-1028   Spring-fed       Fish hatchery           Use pond water          720.1
Fishing Club          water reservoir      Port Elgin                         pond                                       24 hrs/day
                                                                                                                        7 days/week
                                                                                                                         Sept to Apr
                      old salt mine in     Reunion Park,          91-P-0011   Well (re-lined   Fish hatchery           24 h/d, 7 d/wk,         2062.1
                      1800’s (apparently   Town of Kincardine                 in 1990)                                    12 mo/yr,
                      3 original wells)                                                                                120 to 285 gpm
Georgian              (same)               Nottawasaga Valley     90-P-1001   Spring           Fish hatchery           Continuous flow        229.118
Triangle Anglers                           Conservation           90-P-1001                                                                   196.387
Association                                Authority, 99 acres
                                           off the Bruce Trail
Gibraltar Springs     Larry Eagles         Town of The Blue       92-P-0099   3 wells          Bottled water            May to August          491.04
                                           Mountains              92-P-0099                                             16 h/d, 5 d/wk         491.04
                                                                  92-P-0099                                               Sept – April         491.04
                                                                                                                        24 h/d, 7 d/wk
                                                                                                                      approx. 67 gpm ea
Artemesia             Canlim Inc.          Township of Grey       99-P-1011   1 well           Bottled water           Pumps 70 gpm,           483.84
Waters Ltd.                                Highlands                          (spring-fed)     and one household       24 h/d, 7 d/wk,
                                                                                                                            12 mo/yr
John Robertson        Canadian High        Township of Grey       95-P-1002   1 well           Six trailers, one           Pump rate
                      Country Spring       Highlands                                           household, one shop       2000 gal/min
                      Water Ltd.                                              Spring           Bottled water?         Not in use currently    1035.576
Michael Smyth                              No response            93-P-0057                    Bottled water             No response           327.312
Formosa Springs       Formosa Springs/     No response            85-P-1021                    Bottled water             No response           1636.56
Brewery Ltd.          Denbrock-Terry                              85-P-1022                                                                    425.506
                      Inc
                      Northern                                    90-P-1080                    Brewing and Soft                                 164.4
                      Algonquin Brewing                           90-P-1080                    Drinks                                          217.92
                      Co. Ltd.                                    92-P-0059                                                                    2724.0
                      Brick Brewing                               00-P-1030                    Brewing and Soft                                218.88
                      Company Limited                             00-P-1030                    Drinks                                          435.84
Saugeen Springs       Aylmer Sazabo,       Municipality of West   93-P-0077   Well             Water supply for the   Apr-Dec, as req’d         288.0
RV Park               Saugeen Springs      Grey (formerly                                      park/campground         24 h/d, 7 d/wk
(Jim Dillon)          RV Park              Bentinck)                                                                  (meter reads avg.
                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                        20 to 30 m /d)
                                                                                               Private home              Year round


                                                                                                                                                          B-3
Appendix B:         Results of Large PTTW Holder Survey for Grey and Bruce Counties (continued)

Large PTTW            Original Owner        Location               PTTW        Water            Water Use                  Average daily        Max Permit
Holder                                                             No.         Source                                        flowrate              Flow
                                                                                                                                3                    3
                                                                                                                             (m /day)             (m /d)
Homestead             1028541 Ont Ltd /     Township of            99-P-1200   Well             Water supply for resort   Apr-Oct, Dec-Feb        6.813
Resort                Homestead Resort      Southgate              99-P-1200                    complex                     24 h/d, 7 d/wk       408.823
                                                                                                                              as required
Pike Lake Golf        (same)                Municipality of West   97-P-2008   Well             30 homes (future 62         24 h/d, 7 d/wk,       648.0
Centre Ltd.                                 Grey (formerly                                      homes max)                12 mo/yr as req’d
                                            Normanby)                                                                       May 5000 gpd
                                                                                                                             Feb 2400 gpd
                                                                                                                          Capacity 100 gpm
QTF Foods Inc.        Bruce Foods Inc.      Tiverton,              93-P-0058   Well             Food processing            Used minimally,       65472.0
                                            Municipality of                    (supplements                               capacity unknown
                                            Kincardine                         municipal                                    Full production:
                                                                               water use)                                     Aug to Dec
                                                                                                                           Light production:
                                                                                                                              Feb to May
Gardner                                     Municipality of        73-P-0426   3 ponds          Irrigation – Fruit              4 mo/yr          1091.04
Orchards Ltd.                               Meaford                73-P-0426   (man-made)       Orchards                     2 d/wk, 8 h/d
                                                                   73-P-0426                                                   500 gpm
Saugeen Golf          (same)                Town of Saugeen        96-P-1018   Spring-fed       Irrigation – Golf          Pump 4.5 mo/yr          165.0
Club                                        Shores (formerly       96-P-1018   pond             Course                        (May-Sep)           588.46
                                            Saugeen Township)      96-P-1018                                              capacity 900 gpm       1150.56
                                                                                                                              Permitted:
                                                                                                                           150 d/yr, 10 h/d
Walkerton Golf &      (same since 1925)     Municipality of        64-P-0351   Well             Irrigation – Golf         May to September        545.52
Country Club Ltd.                           Brockton (formerly                                  Course                        as required
                                            Brant Township)                                                               pumps 75-80 gpm
                                                                                                                          2-18 h/d, 0-7 d/wk
                                                                                                                          capacity 200 gpm
Stone Tree Golf       (same)                City of Owen Sound     98-P-1096   3 spring-fed     Irrigation – Golf         May to September        550.0
& Fitness Club                                                     98-P-1096   man-made         Course                      300-600 gpm           550.0
                                                                   98-P-1096   ponds                                           0-7 d/wk           550.0
                                                                                                                          varies with precip.
Tymatts               Atkinson Irrigation                          01-P-1031   3 groundwater    Irrigation – Golf                                 1309.0
Development Inc.      (?)                                          01-P-1031   transfer wells   Course                                            281.0
                                                                   01-P-1031                                                                      373.0
                                                                   01-P-1031                                                                      196.0




                                                                                                                                                             B-4
Appendix B:         Results of Large PTTW Holder Survey for Grey and Bruce Counties (continued)

Large PTTW            Original         Location                PTTW No.    Water        Water Use                     Average daily       Max Permit
                                                                                                                               3
Holder                Owner                                                Source                                   flowrate (m /day)        Flow
                                                                                                                                               3
                                                                                                                                            (m /d)
Formosa Seniors       (same)           Formosa,                90-P-1007   Well         Water Supply for 25         pump as needed          78.554
Non-Profit                             Municipality of South                            apartment units              24 h/d, 7 d/wk,
Housing Co.                            Bruce                                                                            12 mo/yr
Town & Country                                                 91-P-0004                Irrigation – Nursery                                  907.0
Nursery                                                        91-P-0004                                                                      16.4
Ronald K. Hills                                                89-P-1015                Agricultural                                         1363.8
                                                               89-P-1015                                                                     181.84
Shane Ardiel                                                   00-P-1010                Agricultural                                        218.208
                                                               00-P-1010                                                                    218.208
Double Diamond        (same)           Port Elgin              98-P-1088   Excavation   Dewatering of sewer           Expired in 1999      13092.48
Construction Ltd.                                                          dewatering   excavations                 (temporary permit)
Petro-Canada                                                   89-P-1007   Excavation   Remedial excavation           Permit expired        200.0
Products Ltd.                                                              dewatering                                     in 1990
Interforest Ltd.      (same)           Municipality of West    97-P-1067   1 well       Domestic services             24 h/d, 7 d/wk,      6546.24
                                       Grey (formerly          97-P-1067   (dug)        and boiler feed                  12 mo/yr          327.312
                                       Bentinck)               97-P-1067                                             capacity 100 gpm       545.52
                                                               97-P-1067   3 ponds?     Fire protection                 As needed           545.52
                                                                                        Sprinkling logs               6 mo/yr, 24 h/d
                                                                                        Filling vats                 12 mo/yr, 5 d/wk
Mel McKean                             Town of The Blue        91-P-0019   Spring-fed   Aggregate washing            Not used in 2 yrs
Investments Ltd.                       Mountains                           pond                                     Quantity unknown
Lotowater                                                      01-P-1004                Miscellaneous                                       3600.0
Limited                                                        01-P-1233   Well         Pumping Test                                       5236.992
Patricia F. Bain      (same)           Township of Grey        65-P-0656   Spring-fed   Originally for recreation       Not in use
                                       Highlands (former       65-P-0656   pond         (swimming)                      (no pump)
                                       Osprey Township)                    Well                                      Small quantities
H. Bye                                 Township of             97-P-1080   Man-made     Dewatering pit              Plan to dewater pit    3927.744
Construction Ltd.                      Southgate (former                   pond         (has been pumped              in fall of 2002
                                       Egremont Twp)                                    2-3 times in                   for 3 weeks
                                                                                        35-40 years, say once            24 h/day
                                                                                        every 10-15 years)
Harold                                                         01-P-1082   Spring-fed   Recycled for use onsite                             2160.0
Sutherland                                                     90-P-1004   pond                                                              216.0
Construction



                                                                                                                                                       B-5
Appendix C
Municipal Groundwater Users Survey
Appendix C:     Results of Municipal Water Supply Survey for Grey County

                                                                              Maximum        Average             Years for      Pumping
    Municipal          MOE         Date of     Certificate of    PTTW       Permitted Rate   flowrate            average        Test Data
                                                                                 3              3
    Well Name         Well No.     C of A      Approval No.       No.          (m /day)      (m /day)            flow rate        (Y/N)

TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BLUFFS
Shallow Lake Water System:        Jan 9/02     3508-549SRG                                    163.9            1999 – 2001         N
       Well #2         unknown    Mar 8/96     7-0102-96-006    96-P-1002        696           either Well #2 or Well #3
       Well #3         2514177    Apr 22/99     amendment       96-P-1002        696               in use at one time
Forest Heights Water System:                                                                  15.19               1997 – 2001      N
                                  Feb 8/02     6411-56VQ5X
       Well #1         2508479    May 30/86    7-0156-85-006    98-P-1026        38.5                 both wells in use
       Well #2         2508481                                  98-P-1026        38.5                 at the same time
Maplecrest Subdiv Water System:                                                                7.03               1997 – 2001      N
                                  Jan 25/02    5323-55EPSK
       Well #1         2503973    Nov 7/88     7-1302-88-006    98-P-1027       47.55                 both wells in use
       Well #2         unknown                                  98-P-1027       25.50                 at the same time
Pottawatomi Village Water Sys:                                                                                                     N
                                  Feb 8/02     0872-56TQX4
       Well #1         2509008    Dec 14/87    7-1696-87-006                                 standby
       Well #2         unknown                                  98-P-1025        93.0         21.84             1997 – 2001

TOWNSHIP OF CHATSWORTH
Chatsworth Water Works:             2002       5751-574KBV                                     161              1997 – 1999
      Well #1           unknown                (under appeal)   84-P-1023      818.208          either Well #1 or Well #2
      Well #2           Unknown   Jan 16/84    7-0001-83-846    84-P-1023      818.208              in use at one time
      Well #3           2507128   Apr 27/78    7-1104-77-786    96-P-1067      125.015          emergency standby only
Walter’s Falls Water Works:                                                                    8.71             1997 – 1999
                                    2002       3642-5ALLTL
 Well #1 (TW-1/89)      2510458   Jul 12/91    7-1776-90-917    91-P-0014        795            either Well #1 or Well #2
 Well #2 (TW-2/89)      2510467                                 91-P-0014        795                in use at one time

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST GREY
Neustadt Water Supply System:                                                                                                      N
      Well #1          unknown                 9056-54MHVO      94-P-0008        276           54               1998 – 2000
                                  Feb 16/94
      Well #2          unknown                 7-0445-93-946    94-P-0008        916           25               1998 – 2000
      Well #3          unknown                                  94-P-0008        527           50               1998 – 2000
Durham Municipal Water Works:                                                                                                      N
     Well #1B          2508882    Mar 20/89    7-0286-89-006    92-P-0051       1363.8        752.6             1997 – 2001
      Well #2          2500906                                  78-P-1032       1636.5        581.0             1997 – 2001




                                                                                                                                        C-1
Appendix C:      Results of Municipal Water Supply Survey for Grey County (continued)

                                                                                   Maximum      Average     Years for    Pumping
     Municipal            MOE          Date of     Certificate of                 Permit Rate   flowrate    average      Test Data
                                                                                     3             3
     Well Name           Well No.      C of A      Approval No.     PTTW No.       (m /day)     (m /day)    flow rate      (Y/N)

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHGATE
Dundalk Water Works:                              0535-53ZSU2                                     660      1997 – 2001      N
         D1              2500898                  7-0466-82-006     not req’d*                    182      1997 – 2001
         D2              2500897                  7-0793-81-006     not req’d*                     82      1997 – 2001
                                                  7-0720-76-006
         D3              2505043                                    76-P-1013        1182         396      1997 – 2001

TOWN OF HANOVER
Town of Hanover Water Works:                                                                                                N
                                      Jan 25/02   5623-53VJU7
       Well #1         1400668                    7-0300-87-006     63-P-2588        4546        868.6     1997 – 2001
       Well #2         1406414                                      88-P-1002       8182.8       884.5     1997 – 2001

MUNICIPALITY OF GREY HIGHLANDS
Markdale Water Works:
                                                     9722-53THK7
        Isla Well         2504533                    6-0265-73-693    76-P-1002      2618        2180         2001          N
       Terra Well         2504534                                     76-P-1002      1309        1090         2001          N
Kimberley-Amik-Talisman Water Supply:
       Spring #1             N/A                     7-0643-93-947     94-P-002      1125         100         2001         N/A
       Spring #2             N/A
Feversham (Beaver Heights) Water Supply:             2519-53TQBS
         Well #2          2504880                    7-1006-74-001    96-P-1071      45.8         38.2        2001          N
         Well #3          unknown                    7-1042-74-006    96-P-1071      98.2         81.8        2001          N
* Wells commissioned prior to the requirement for a Permit To Take Water.




                                                                                                                                 C-2
Appendix C:       Results of Municipal Water Supply Survey for Bruce County

                                                                                Maximum         Average            Years for       Pumping
   Municipal            MOE          Date of     Certificate of    PTTW       Permitted Rate    flowrate           average         Test Data
                                                                                   3               3
   Well Name           Well No.      C of A      Approval No.       No.          (m /day)       (m /day)           flow rate         (Y/N)
MUNICIPALITY OF ARRAN-ELDERSLIE
Tara Water Works:                   May 23/02    9840-59WH59                                     362.3            1997 – 2001
      Well #2           1402117     May 8/79     7-0077-79-006                                   171.6            2000 – 2001         N
      Well #3           1404886     Oct 26/60       60-B-622      79-P-1195        727           270.5            2000 – 2001         N
Chesley Water Works:
 Victoria Park Well     1401005     Jan 23/02    1450-543K4V      00-P-1355        982           175.8            1997 – 2001         N
  Community Park
        Well           unknown                                    00-P-1355        982           644.0            1997 – 2001         N
TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA
  Fiddlehead Well       1402710     Feb 7/02     9866-56WRJD      00-P-1111        327             7.4            1997 – 2001         N
                                    Jan 23/02     0606-53VLPL     95-P-1014
                                     Jul 7/78    7-0144-77-786
                                    Nov 5/71     7-0569-70-716
Cammidge-Collins Water Works:       May 30/02    2066-5AFLSY
Well #1 (PW1-71)     1402833        Feb 8/02     8620-56WG6D                                   not in use                             N
                                    Jan 29/02    5390-55MSAY
 Well #2 (PW2-84)       1406211     Dec 31/02    0166-4Y6QZA      85-P-1007       60.75            4.7            1997 – 2001         N
                                    Oct 29/84    7-0713-83-846
                                    Dec 20/71    7-0724-71-006
    Robins Well         1402630                  5150-5AJHDL      95-P-1055       141.75          19.2            1997 – 2001         N
                                    May 30/02         8453-
                                    Feb 7/02        56WGWX
                                    Jan 17/02    7081-55MRM4
                                    Feb 5/97     7-0568-70-977
                                    Jan 20/77    7-0998-76-776
                                    Mar 15/71    7-0568-70-716
    Fedy Well           1402717     May 30/02    5708-5AFPV9      90-P-1044       117.8            Decommissioned in 1996             N
                                    Jan 17/02    7361-55MS9T         see                       (Fedy subdivision now serviced by
                                    Oct 30/96    7-1036-96-006     Winburk                              Winburk Well)
                                                 7-0430-71-006
    Forbes Well         1402347     May 30/02    3230-5AFNRN      95-P-1016        69             15.6            1997 – 2001         N
                                    Jan 17/02    4011-55MS75
                                    Dec 12/96    7-0841-95-006




                                                                                                                                           C-3
Appendix C:       Results of Municipal Water Supply Survey for Bruce County (continued)

                                                                                 Maximum         Average        Years for    Pumping
   Municipal            MOE          Date of     Certificate of    PTTW        Permitted Rate    flowrate       average      Test Data
                                                                                    3               3
   Well Name           Well No.      C of A      Approval No.       No.           (m /day)       (m /day)       flow rate      (Y/N)
TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA (continued)
    Trask Well          1405022     May 30/02    5019-5AFQZH      95-P-1017         80             20.3        1997 – 2001      N
                                    Jan 17/02    4691-55MS97
                                    Dec 12/96    7-0955-95-006
Huron Woods Water Works:                                                                        49.1 (#3+#6)   1997 – 2001      N
                                    May 30/02    3048-5AJMYE
 Well #1 (standby)   1402346        Jan 17/02    1802-55M5AB      93-P-0004        104.6          standby
 Well #2 (standby)   1403336        Sep 10/91    7-0803-81-917    93-P-0004         52.3          standby
      Well #3        1403732        Feb 4/82     7-0803-81-826    93-P-0004        130.9
      Well #4        1404410        Jun 13/77    7-0333-77-006                   not in use
                                    Aug 22/70    7-0556-70-746
      Well #5        1405497                                                     not in use
                                    Jul 25/69    7-0470-69-006
      Well #6        1405682                                      93-P-0004        457.6
   Foreman Well      1403056        May 30/02    7491-5AJP3V      00-P-1109        163.4            9.8        1997 – 2001      N
                                    Feb 14/02    8399-56WRU9
                                    Jan 17/02    1703-55MS7U
                                    Nov 8/96     7-0874-72-736
  Thomson Well          1404411     May 30/02    7287-5AJQ9C      00-P-1107        196.0            6.3        1997 – 2001      N
                                    Feb 8/02         0707-
                                    Jan 16/02      56WUHG
                                    Oct 17/77    0108-55MS8E
                                                 7-1072-76-776
   Winburk Well         unknown     May 30/02    0342-5AFRL6      90-P-1044        262.1           31.3        1997 – 2001      N
                                    Feb 8/02         0354-        00-P-1110
                                    Jan 16/02      56WBRG          (includes
                                    Oct 30/96    8076-53VQ37         Fedy)
                                    Mar 3/83     7-1036-96-006
                                    May 24/78    7-0026-83-006
                                    Jul 14/71    7-1159-77-786
                                                 7-0430-71-006
   Gremik Well          1405077                      6868-        00-P-1108        328.3           19.0        1997 – 2001      N
                                    Jun 10/02
                                                    5AFMGU
                                    Jan 31/02
                                                 2756-53YP5W
                                    Aug 30/79
                                                 7-0477-79-006




                                                                                                                                     C-4
Appendix C:     Results of Municipal Water Supply Survey for Bruce County (continued)

                                                                              Maximum        Average     Years for    Pumping
    Municipal          MOE         Date of     Certificate of    PTTW       Permitted Rate   flowrate    average      Test Data
                                                                                 3              3
    Well Name         Well No.     C of A      Approval No.       No.          (m /day)      (m /day)    flow rate      (Y/N)
MUNICIPALITY OF BROCKTON
 Geeson Avenue        1405166                   4047-53YN25     99-P-1052         50           13.0     2000 – 2002      N
      Well                         Nov 8/79     original CofA
Chepstow-Powers       1404829                   8086-57RILE     99-P-1051        50.4          14.5     2000 – 2001      N
 Subdivision Well
Lake Rosalind Well    1406588                  9289-5DEJ6W      no permit                      28.7     2000 – 2002      N
                                               7-0623-88-007
TOWNSHIP OF HURON-KINLOSS
Village of Ripley:
                                               5844-58VSGN
       Well #1          1401617                                 95-P-1006        864           313      1998 – 2001      N
                                               7-0832-95-006
       Well #2          1408736
Lakeshore Area Water Works:
Point Clark Development Wells:                                                                                           N
                                               0586-58WJ8P
     PCD Well #1        1405108                                 95-P-1028      3273.12         561      1998 – 2001
                                               7-0968-95-967
     PCD Well #1        1408712
Blairs Grove Wells:
                                               0586-58WJ8P
     BG Well #2            ?                   7-0968-95-967    93-P-0055       2620.8          58      1998 – 2001
     BG Well #3         1408715                                                              no pump
Murdock Glen Wells:
                                               0586-58WJ8P
     MG Well #1         1406036                                 91-P-0080       196.56         311      1998 – 2001
                                               7-0968-95-967
     MG Well #2         1408241                                 95-P-1053       1814.4
Huronville South Wells:
                                               0586-58WJ8P
      HS Well #1        1405554                                 92-P-0061       271.3          246      1998 – 2001
                                               7-0968-95-967
      HS Well #2        1409043                                 95-P-1029      3927.744
Lucknow Water Works:                           1183-59FP2K
       Well #4          1401878                7-0423-84-006    78-P-1052       681.9           70      1999 – 2001      N
       Well #5          1401880                7-0202-68-006                                   446      1999 – 2001
Whitechurch Water Works:
                                                5920-547JVC     61-P-0450       227.28         25          2001          N
       Well #1          1401736




                                                                                                                              C-5
Appendix C:      Results of Municipal Water Supply Survey for Bruce County (continued)

                                                                                Maximum        Average     Years for    Pumping
    Municipal            MOE        Date of     Certificate of    PTTW        Permitted Rate   flowrate    average      Test Data
                                                                                   3              3
    Well Name           Well No.    C of A      Approval No.       No.           (m /day)      (m /day)    flow rate      (Y/N)
MUNICIPALITY OF SOUTH BRUCE
Mildmay Water System:
      Well #1         1402162       Mar 2/87    7-0126-87-006    01-P-1230        1637.3        624.8     1997 – 2001      N
                                    Dec 22/86   7-1353-86-006    68-P-0088         545.5
 Well #2 (standby)      1407200     Dec 20/89   7-1724-89-006    01-P-1230        1637.3       standby                     N
                                                                 00-P-1372         982.0
  Teeswater Well        1408942     Jun 11/97   7-1098-96-976    96-P-1059        1309.2        421.8     1997 – 2001      N
    (artesian)
MUNICIPALITY OF KINCARDINE
Tiverton Well Supply:
                                                7-0187-80-006
      Dent Well         1402695                                  93-P-0051        393.12        280.3     1998 – 2001
                                                7-1017-97-006
    Briar Hill Well     1404483                                  93-P-0050        524.16
  Underwood Well        1402991                 7-1017-86-006    73-P-0401         90.92         25.6     1999 – 2001
                                                7-1027-72-006
  Scott Point Well      1402494                 7-0434-92-006                     77.76          26.6     1999 – 2001
   Kinhuron Well        1402680                 5646-549RHP      81-P-1027        72.736         29.1     1998 – 2001
                                                7-0576-71-006
 Craig-Eskrick Well     1405699                 8146-549R9S      00-P-1297                       24.3     1998 – 2001
                                                7-0849-81-820
Lake Huron Highlands Well Supply:               5857-55HGYH      00-P-1386
      Well #1         1402790                   7-0983-73-736    81-P-1030       116.378       standby
      Well #2         1405703                   7-0637-81-007     (expired)                     183.6     1998 – 2001
 Port Head Estates    1408079                   8737-54APYX      92-P-0033       294.624         9.2      1998 – 2001
       Well                                     7-0569-92-006




                                                                                                                                C-6
Appendix D
Contaminant Source Assessment Form
                                                                                        Appendix D. Contaminant Survey



Grey and Bruce Counties
Groundwater Study                                                                       Date:____________________
Business/Chemical Use Inventory                                     Please fax to (fax #) by:____________________

1. Facility Information
Facility Name:__________________________________________________               “ Completed at time of visit
Street Address:__________________________________________________              “ Left for business to complete
Georeferenced Location: Latitude:___________ Longitude:___________             “ Not completed
Person Interviewed:______________________________________________
Title:__________________________________ Phone:_________________________
Name for the Mailing:___________________________ Title:____________________
       Mailing Address:__________________________________________________
       City:_________________________ Prov:________ Postal Code:___________
Did you know your facility is located close to a municipal well?   “ Yes    “ No
If known, please indicate any previous facilities on the

2. Type of Service/Product                                                 NAICS code: _____________
                                                                           (refer to Terms of Reference, Schedule D)
Facility Type:
“ Office                  “ Restaurant           “ Medical                 “ Agriculture: Livestock Operations
“ Gas Station             “ Industry             “ Dry Cleaner             “ Agriculture: Crops/Nursery
“ Computers               “ Waste Management     “ Automotive              “ Printer/Photo Processor
“ Manufacturing           “ Other___________________________

3. Materials Handling
How do you dispose of waste?                 “ On site     “ Off site
Is spill cleanup equipment available?        “ Yes         “ No
Is there a septic system on site?            “ Yes         “ No              “ Unknown
Are there floor drains in the shop?          “ Yes         “ No              “ Unknown

Any wells on site?        Industrial Use Well              “       Number of Wells:_____
                          Abandoned/Unused Well            “       Number of Wells:_____
                          Irrigation Well                  “       Number of Wells:_____
                          Drainage Well                    “       Number of Wells:_____
                          Drinking Water Well
                                                           “       Number of Wells:_____
                          Observation Well

Is there an Environmental Mgt System in Place?             “ Yes             “ No      Date Initiated__________




                                                                                                           1 of 3
                                                                                               Appendix D. Contaminant Survey




Microbiological Contaminants Storage

                                                Estimated                         Type of Storage Container           Physical
                                                 Volume                                                                 State
                                                                              Earthen      Concrete     Metal       (Sol/Liq/Gas)
Biosolids (e.g., pulp/paper waste)              _______                          “            “           “           _______
Septage                                         _______                          “            “           “           _______
Sewage Sludge                                   _______                          “            “           “           _______
Agricultural Manure                             _______                          “            “           “           _______
Other Animal Waste                              _______                          “            “           “           _______


Organic Contaminants Storage

                     Liquid          <25L        25-250L      250-2500L       >2500L       Above       Below          Physical
                                     (<5 gal)    (5-50 gal)    (50-500 gal)   (>500 gal)   Ground      Ground           State
                         Solid       <25Kg      25-250Kg      250-2500Kg      >2500Kg       Tank        Tank        (Sol/Liq/Gas)

Petroleum Products                     “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
Insecticides/
Herbicides                             “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
Brake/Transmission
Fluid                                  “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
Acids/Bases/Caustics                   “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
Paints/Dyes/Stains                     “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
Cleaning Solutions                     “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
          (soap, detergents, etc.)
Chlorinated Solvents                   “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
 (degreasers, dry cleaning fluid, TCE, etc.)
Other Solvents                         “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
    (MEK, MIBK, acetone, varsol, etc.)
Film Chemicals                         “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
Registered Wastes                      “             “             “              “           “           “              _______
(PCBs, asbestos, etc.)



Inorganic Contaminants Storage

                                                Estimated                                                             Physical
                                                 Volume                                                                 State
                                                                                                                    (Sol/Liq/Gas)
Fertilizers                                      _______                                                              _______
Salt                                             _______                                                                 _______
Other _____________                              _______                                                                 _______




                                                                                                                2 of 3
                                                                  Appendix D. Contaminant Survey




5. Landscape Application of Materials

                                    Yes     No                     Estimated Area of
                                                                      Application
Nutrients                           “       “                 _________________________
(manure, biosolids)
Fertilizers                         “       “                 _________________________
Pesticides                          “       “                 _________________________
Salt (e.g., paved surfaces)         “       “                 _________________________
Other ________________              “       “                 _________________________



Comments:___________________________________________________________________________________
                                                ___________________________________________
__________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
                         _
____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                 3 of 3
Appendix E
WHPA Model Calibration Graphs
                                                      Appendix E. Calibration Plots




Appendix E – Calibration Plots for 22 MODFLOW Models




Figure E1: Shallow Lake Model Calibration Plot
Figure E2: Owen Sound Model Calibration Plot
Figure E3: Chatsworth Model Calibration Plot
                 s
Figure E4: Walter’ Falls Model Calibration Plot
Figure E5: Neustadt Model Calibration Plot
Figure E6: Durham Model Calibration Plot
Figure E7: Dundalk Model Calibration Plot
Figure E8: Hanover Model Calibration Plot
Figure E9: Markdale Model Calibration Plot
Figure E10: Feversham Model Calibration Plot
Figure E11: Kimberley Model Calibration Plot
Figure E12: Tara Model Calibration Plot
Figure E13: Chesley Model Calibration Plot
Figure E14: Sauble Beach Model Calibration Plot
Figure E15: Chepstow Model Calibration Plot
Figure E16: Ripley Model Calibration Plot
Figure E17: Huron West Model Calibration Plot
Figure E18: Lucknow Model Calibration Plot
Figure E19: Mildmay Model Calibration Plot
Figure E20: Teeswater Model Calibration Plot
Figure E21: Kincardine South Model Calibration Plot
Figure E22: Kincardine North Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      240
Calculated Head (m)
                      220
                      200
                      180




                        180         200                220                         240
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 253
Max. Residual: 14.97188 (m) at 2509176/2509176        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.2827553 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.08842749 (m) at 1401518/1401518                 Root mean squared : 4.503045 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.3603808 (m)                                     Normalized RMS : 9.189886 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.364527 (m)


Figure E1: Shallow Lake Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      280
Calculated Head (m)
                      230
                      180




                        180                         230                                            280
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 472
Max. Residual: -22.26986 (m) at 2508544/2508544           Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.3451294 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.05048501 (m) at 2505971/2505971                    Root mean squared : 7.490184 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.002767668 (m)                                      Normalized RMS : 8.188141 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 5.91374 (m)


Figure E2: Owen Sound Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      370
Calculated Head (m)
                      320
                      270




                        270                        320                                            370
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 246
Max. Residual: -20.53858 (m) at 2509845/2509845          Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.5356909 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.0819707 (m) at 2508853/2508853                    Root mean squared : 8.385088 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.05771673 (m)                                       Normalized RMS : 10.41988 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 6.993441 (m)


Figure E3: Chatsworth Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      440
Calculated Head (m)
                      340
                      240




                        240                    340                                      440
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 80
Max. Residual: -41.74701 (m) at 2508707/2508707        Standard Error of the Estimate : 1.603149 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.2981284 (m) at 2503793/2503793                 Root mean squared : 14.25595 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.4419597 (m)                                      Normalized RMS : 6.78096 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 10.76556 (m)


Figure E4: Walter's Falls Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      350
Calculated Head (m)
                      300
                      250




                        250                  300                                350
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 108
Max. Residual: -16.01205 (m) at 1400935/1400935       Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.6559306 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.003174238 (m) at 2508659/2508659               Root mean squared : 6.785135 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.04282801 (m)                                    Normalized RMS : 7.274413 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 5.491535 (m)


Figure E5: Neustadt Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      410
Calculated Head (m)
                      360
                      310




                        310              360                            410
                                               Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 213
Max. Residual: -22.66153 (m) at 2501261/2501261           Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.4651484 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.05847021 (m) at 2508311/2508311                    Root mean squared : 6.772709 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.02513299 (m)                                        Normalized RMS : 5.523782 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 5.333184 (m)


Figure E6: Durham Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      550
                      530
Calculated Head (m)
                      510
                      490
                      470




                        470       490                510                     530                    550
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 176
Max. Residual: -12.5604 (m) at 2500085/2500085             Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.3595786 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.004250894 (m) at 2504108/2504108                    Root mean squared : 4.759276 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.1541871 (m)                                          Normalized RMS : 7.585951 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.817364 (m)


Figure E7: Dundalk Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      300
Calculated Head (m)
                      280
                      260
                      240




                        240         260                280                         300
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 116
Max. Residual: 13.21765 (m) at 2505052/2505052        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.4312598 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.03681665 (m) at 2500218/2500218                Root mean squared : 4.625101 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.05730328 (m)                                   Normalized RMS : 8.493748 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.549696 (m)


Figure E8: Hanover Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      480
Calculated Head (m)
                      430
                      380




                        380                430                            480
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 219
Max. Residual: -30.0688 (m) at 2508569/2508569        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.6671373 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.02301874 (m) at 2501228/2501228                Root mean squared : 9.850469 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.07747985 (m)                                   Normalized RMS : 8.517113 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 8.00404 (m)


Figure E9: Markdale Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      530
Calculated Head (m)
                      480
                      430




                        430                    480                                      530
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 235
Max. Residual: 23.15726 (m) at 2508233/2508233        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.5238469 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.00515918 (m) at 2508179/2508179                Root mean squared : 8.014323 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.1270131 (m)                                     Normalized RMS : 8.255636 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 6.265718 (m)


Figure E10: Feversham Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      430
Calculated Head (m)
                      330
                      230




                        230                       330                                    430
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 25
Max. Residual: -39.0714 (m) at 2504007/2504007          Standard Error of the Estimate : 3.483723 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.6898401 (m) at 2501076/2501076                   Root mean squared : 17.06742 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.1582888 (m)                                      Normalized RMS : 8.502464 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 14.41662 (m)


Figure E11: Kimberley Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      260
                      240
Calculated Head (m)
                      220
                      200




                        200            220                        240                            260
                                             Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 125
Max. Residual: 9.735227 (m) at 1400596/1400596          Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.3206915 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.03804812 (m) at 1404995/1404995                  Root mean squared : 3.572263 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.09232055 (m)                                     Normalized RMS : 9.595115 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 2.775992 (m)


Figure E12: Tara Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      290
                      270
Calculated Head (m)
                      250
                      230
                      210




                        210     230           250               270                   290
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 137
Max. Residual: -14.58641 (m) at 2508605/2508605       Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.4114936 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.03050583 (m) at 2502369/2502369                Root mean squared : 4.799452 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.07915274 (m)                                      Normalized RMS : 5.88024 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.644412 (m)


Figure E13: Chesley Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      230
Calculated Head (m)
                      210
                      190
                      170




                        170         190                210                         230
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 527
Max. Residual: -12.65941 (m) at 1404424/1404424       Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.1650612 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.001565967 (m) at 1402362/1402362                Root mean squared : 3.788115 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.1372773 (m)                                     Normalized RMS : 6.534207 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 2.918251 (m)


Figure E14: Sauble Beach Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      320
                      300
Calculated Head (m)
                      280
                      260
                      240




                        240     260           280               300                   320
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 266
Max. Residual: -12.59266 (m) at 1404975/1404975       Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.2868558 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.003563882 (m) at 1400893/1400893               Root mean squared : 4.670601 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.09303402 (m)                                    Normalized RMS : 6.460564 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.71229 (m)


Figure E15: Chepstow Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      280
                      260
Calculated Head (m)
                      240
                      220
                      200




                        200     220           240               260                   280
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 71
Max. Residual: 10.48843 (m) at 1407717/1407717        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.4897673 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.01992998 (m) at 1401592/1401592                 Root mean squared : 4.098266 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.06889785 (m)                                    Normalized RMS : 5.736077 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.031532 (m)


Figure E16: Ripley Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      230
Calculated Head (m)
                      210
                      190
                      170




                        170         190                210                         230
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 168
Max. Residual: -9.841044 (m) at 1405209/1405209       Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.3124501 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.07864714 (m) at 1404249/1404249                 Root mean squared : 4.039734 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.1267605 (m)                                    Normalized RMS : 7.498095 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.31373 (m)


Figure E17: Huron West Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      320
                      300
Calculated Head (m)
                      280
                      260
                      240




                        240       260              280                     300                    320
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 112
Max. Residual: 9.935118 (m) at 1401754/1401754           Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.3485598 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.04976587 (m) at 3001674/3001674                    Root mean squared : 3.673345 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.08738528 (m)                                      Normalized RMS : 5.793481 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.013834 (m)


Figure E18: Lucknow Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      360
                      340
Calculated Head (m)
                      320
                      300
                      280




                        280     300           320               340                   360
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 75
Max. Residual: 11.06353 (m) at 1406275/1406275        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.5145026 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.06166965 (m) at 1400946/1400946                  Root mean squared : 4.42648 (m)
Residual Mean : 0.07046253 (m)                                    Normalized RMS : 6.198943 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.437172 (m)


Figure E19: Mildmay Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      330
                      310
Calculated Head (m)
                      290
                      270




                        270            290                        310                            330
                                             Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 53
Max. Residual: 8.175419 (m) at 1404447/1404447          Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.5176458 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.05123584 (m) at 1405384/1405384                   Root mean squared : 3.732908 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.02882573 (m)                                     Normalized RMS : 8.098118 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.028138 (m)


Figure E20: Teeswater Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      270
Calculated Head (m)
                      220
                      170




                        170                    220                                      270
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 364
Max. Residual: 21.47186 (m) at 1407870/1407870        Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.2819059 (m)
Min. Residual: 0.02096812 (m) at 1402483/1402483                 Root mean squared : 5.373086 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.1486421 (m)                                    Normalized RMS : 5.499261 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.919334 (m)


Figure E21: Kincardine South Model Calibration Plot
                              Calculated vs. Observed Head : Steady state


                      270
Calculated Head (m)
                      220
                      170




                        170                          220                                            270
                                           Observed Head (m)




Num.Points : 87
Max. Residual: -10.43931 (m) at 1400820/1400820            Standard Error of the Estimate : 0.4331119 (m)
Min. Residual: -0.005983521 (m) at 1406129/1406129                    Root mean squared : 4.017787 (m)
Residual Mean : -0.1011085 (m)                                         Normalized RMS : 4.736348 ( % )
Absolute Residual Mean : 3.0896 (m)


Figure E22: Kincardine North Model Calibration Plot
Appendix F
Municipal We ll Information
                                                                                                 Appendix F: Municipal Wel l Information
Appendix F: Municipal Well Information
County Township/Municipality      Municipal Wells             Max.      Average            Year                                 2021
                                                           Permitted   Flow Rate           Avg              Source           Flow Rate
                                                          (Litre/day)  (m3/day)                                              (m3/day)
Grey      Township of              Shallow Lake#2           696000       163.9          1999-2001           Survey             189.5
              Georgian Bluffs      Shallow Lake#3           696000 (well #2 or #3 in use at one time)
                                   Forest Heights#1          38500        15.19        1997 – 2001          Survey             17.6
                                   Forest Heights#2          38500    (combined)
                                   Maplecrest#1              47550        7.03         1997 – 2001          Survey              8.1
                                   Maplecrest#2              25500    (combined)
                                   Pottawatomi Village#1  combined?     standby                             Survey
                                   Pottawatomi Village#2     93000       21.84         1997 – 2001                             25.2
          Township of Chatsworth Chatsworth#1               818208         161         1997 – 1999        Eng report           186.1
                                   Chatsworth#2             818208 (well #1 or #2 in use at one time)
                                   Chatsworth#3             125015
                                   Walter's Falls#1         795000        8.71         1997 – 1999        Eng report           10.1
                                   Walter's Falls#2         795000 (well #1 or #2 in use at one time)
          Municipality of          Neustadt #1              276000         54           1998-2000         eng report           62.4
              West Grey            Neustadt #2              916000         25           1998-2000         eng report           28.9
                                   Neustadt #3              527000         50           1998-2000         eng report           57.8
                                   Durham#1B               1363800       752.6                              survey             870.0
                                   Durham#2                1636560         581                              survey             671.6
          Township of Southgate Dundalk#1                      --        182.0          1997-2001     survey & eng report      210.4
                                   Dundalk#2                   --         82.0          1997-2001     survey & eng report      94.8
                                   Dundalk#3               1181960       396.0          1997-2001     survey & eng report      457.8
          Town of Hanover          Hanover#1               4546000       868.6          1997-2001           survey            1004.1
                                   Hanover#2               8182800       884.5          1997-2001                             1022.5
          Township of              Markdale_Isla           2618496        2180            2001              survey            2520.1
              Grey Highlands       Markdale_Terra          1309248        1090            2001                                1260.0
                                   Beaver Heights#2          45824        38.2            2001              survey             44.2
                                   Beaver Heights#3          98194        81.8            2001                                 94.6
                                   Kimberley#1                n/a          100            2001              survey             115.6
                                   Kimberley#2                n/a     (combined)
Bruce     Municipality of          Tara#2                      --        171.6          2000-2001           survey             198.4
              Arran-Elderslie      Tara#3                   727360       270.5          2000-2001                              312.7
                                   Chesley_Victoria        1307520       175.8          1997-2001           survey             203.2
                                   Chesley_Community       2615040         644          1997-2001                              744.5
          Town of South            Fiddlehead#1             327000         7.4          1997-2001           survey              8.6
              Bruce Peninsula      Cammidge&Collins#2        60750         4.7          1997-2001           survey              5.4
                                   Robins#3                 141750        19.2          1997-2001           survey             22.2
                                   Fedy#4                   118000
                                   Forbes#5                  69000        15.6          1997-2001           survey             18.0
                                   Trask#6                   80000        20.3          1997-2001           survey             23.5
                                   Huron Woods#1            104600         10            estimate           survey             11.6
                                   Huron Woods#2             52300          5            estimate                               5.8
                                   Huron Woods#3            130900         10           1997-2001                              11.6
                                   Huron Woods#6            457700         39           1997-2001                              45.1
                                   Foreman#8                163440         9.8          1997-2001           survey             11.3
                                   Thomson#9                196000         6.3          1997-2001           survey              7.3
                                   Winburk#10               262080        31.3          1997-2001           survey             36.2
                                   Gremik#11                328320         19           1997-2001           survey             22.0
          Municipality of Brockton Lake Rosiland#3             --         28.7          2000-2002           survey             33.2
                                   Chepstow                  50400        14.5          2000-2001           survey             16.8
          Township of              Ripley#1                 864000         313          1998-2001           survey             361.8
              Huron-Kinloss        Ripley#2                combined   (combined)
                                   Point Clark#1           3273120         561          1998-2001           survey             648.5
                                   Point Clark#2           combined   (combined)
                                   Blairs Grove#2          2620800          58          1998-2001           survey             67.0
                                   Blairs Grove#3         combined?     no pump
                                   Murdock Glen#1           196560         311          1998-2001           survey             359.5
                                   Murdock Glen#2          1814400    (combined)
                                   Huronville#1             271296         246          1998-2001           survey             284.4
                                   Huronville#2            3927744    (combined)
                                   Lucknow#4                   --          70           1999-2001           survey             80.9
                                   Lucknow#5                681900         446          1999-2001           survey             515.6
                                   Whitechurch#1            227280         25             2001              survey             28.9
          Municipality of          Mildmay#1                545520       624.8          1997-2001           survey             722.3
              South Bruce          Mildmay#2                982000
                                   Teeswater#3             1309200       421.8          1997-2001           survey             487.6
          Municipality of          Tiverton_Dent            393120       280.3          1998-2001           survey             324.0
              Kincardine           Tiverton_BriarHill       524160     combined
                                   Underwood#1               90920        25.6          1999-2001           survey             29.6
                                   Scott Point#1             77760        26.6          1999-2001           survey             30.7
                                   Kinhuron#1                72736        29.1          1998-2001           survey             33.6
                                   Craig-Eskrick#1             --         24.3          1998-2001           survey             28.1
                                   Lake Huron Highlands#1 116378         183.6          1998-2001           survey             212.2
                                   Lake Huron Highlands#2 combined       well #2
                                   Port Head Estates#1      294624         9.2          1998-2001           survey             10.6
* Bruce County Planning Dept.
Appendix G
Press Releases
Press Release                                    Grey County
July 2002                                        Bruce County
Groundwater and Wellhead Protection
Studies

Water is a precious and irreplaceable            underground in order to determine the
resource. In recognizing the need for safe       extent of the wellhead protection area for
water, communities across Ontario are now        each municipal well. Once this is known,
undertaking measures for the long-term           pro-active methods of managing and
management and protection of their water         protecting groundwater resources will be
supply. The County of Grey and the County        recommended.
of Bruce have now initiated a study to
determine the characteristics of                 Public information sessions will be held
groundwater and to establish wellhead            during the study to provide an opportunity
protection areas. This cost of this study is     for interested residents to learn more about
being shared by the Ministry of the              the project and to provide their comments
Environment and Energy and the County            to the study team.
governments.
                                                 For further information about the study,
Since groundwater is the primary source of       please visit our website at:
                                                 www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca
drinking water for many of the communities
in these Counties, the study will first define
local and regional groundwater conditions.       If you have any questions, please feel free
This will be followed by an assessment of        to contact.
aquifers that are particularly susceptible to
contamination and the identification of          Chris LaForest, MCIP, RPP
potential contaminant sources. A key focus       County Planner
will be to determine the wellhead                County of Bruce
protection area for 78 municipal wells and       Tel. Walkerton 519 881-1291 extn. 254
two springs serving 48 communities               Tel. Wiarton 519 534-2092
throughout the Counties. These are the           email: bcpllaforest@brucecounty.on.ca
areas where water is captured from               website: www.brucecounty.on.ca
groundwater or surface water sources to
supply the well.                                 or

Groundwater is water found in the tiny           Janice McDonald, MCIP, RPP
spaces between soil particles and cracks in      County Planner
the bedrock. Aquifers are the underground        County of Grey
areas of soil and rock where substantial         Tel. Owen Sound 519 376-2205 extn. 233
quantities of groundwater are found and          email: jmcdonald@greycounty.on.ca
are the source for wells and springs. It is      website: www.greycounty.on.ca
important to understand the size of
aquifers, the direction of the water flow and
the time taken for water to travel
           Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study
                      Public Meeting and Open House
Water is a precious and irreplaceable resource. The County of Grey and the County of
Bruce are now conducting a study to characterize the groundwater flow systems, to
identify areas susceptible to contamination, and to define protection areas       for existing
municipal well supplies within the counties. This will lead to measures to protect the
aquifers and wells that provide the source of the water we use on a daily basis. This will
also help 48 communities with municipal groundwater supplies with         in the Counties to
establish wellhead protection areas around their wellfields. These are the areas
surrounding municipal wells and springs that are susceptible to contamination if they are
not protected.

If you are concerned about protecting the quality and quantity of groundwater in your
community, please check your calendar and plan to attend an open house and public
meeting. This important meeting will be held on    Tuesday, August 27, 2002 in the
Community Centre (129 4 th Avenue Southeast) in Chesley. To assist you in planning
your day, the same format has been planned for both the afternoon and evening. In the
afternoon, the open house will run from 3:00 to 5:00 pm with a formal presentation to be
made at 3:30 pm. In the evening, the open house will run     from 7:00 to 9:00 pm with a
formal presentation at 7:30 pm. There will be a question and answer period following
each presentation. Members of the Steering Committee and the Consulting Team will
be in attendance to help you with any questions or concerns t hat you may have. We
look forward to seeing you there.

For further information about the study, please visit our website at:
www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact.

Chris LaForest, MCIP, RPP
County Planner
County of Bruce
Tel. Walkerton 519 881 -1291 extn. 254
Tel. Wiarton 519 534 -2092
email: bcpllaforest@brucecounty.on.ca
website: www.brucecounty.on.ca

or,

Janice McDonald, MCIP, RPP
County Planner
County of Grey
Tel. Owen Sound 519 376 -2205 extn. 233
email: jmcdonald@greycounty.on.ca
website: www.greycounty.on.ca
                                                                          February 3, 2003



       Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study

                          Public Open House #2
The Grey and Bruce Counties Groundwater Study Team today announced the
organization of a second public m eeting to be held at the Chesley Community Centre on
Tuesday, February 18, 2003. The purpose of the Open House will be to present the
draft study findings to residents and businesses of the Counties.

The primary objectives of the Study are to define exist ing groundwater and aquifer
resources, to delineate wellhead protection areas for municipal wells and to develop
groundwater protection strategies for municipal groundwater systems in Grey and Bruce
Counties. Groundwater resources have been mapped regional ly across the study area,
and wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) have been developed for 76 municipal well
systems in 45 communities throughout the counties. Groundwater use and groundwater
vulnerability have also been assessed within the study area. These         results will be
presented at the Open House.
                                                                       th
The meeting will be held at the Chesley Community Center (129 4           Ave SE, Chesley,
Ontario) from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm, and 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm. The meeting format will
consist of a formal presentation followed by the opportunity for questions.

Persons wishing to learn more about the Study prior to the meetings can visit the project
web site at www.greybrucegroundwaterstudy.on.ca . If you have any question s, please
feel free to contact:

Janice McDonald, MCIP, RPP, County Planner
County of Grey, Owen Sound, (519) 376 -2205 x233
email: jmcdonald@greycounty.on.ca
website: www.greycounty.on.ca

Chris LaForest, MCIP, RPP, County Planner
County of Bruce, Walkerto n, (519) 881 -1291 x254, or Wiarton (519) 534 -2092
email: bcpllaforest@brucecounty.on.ca
website: www.brucecounty.on.ca
Appendix H
Sample WHPA Ordinance
Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan

A.     Wellhead Protection
Goal for Wellhead Protection
To provide for the protection of municipal water supplies from contamination associated with
certain land uses and to secure the long-term protection of a potable water supply for existing
residents and businesses.
To prohibit land uses from being established in Wellhead Protection Areas or to ensure that
certain uses can be established within an acceptable level of risk to groundwater quality.
Identification of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA)
WHPAs are shown as “                                             x’
                       Wellhead Constraint Areas”on Schedule ‘ to the Official Plan. A WHPA
includes four time-related zones which were determined through a hydrogeological
investigation. These include the 50 day, 50 day - 2 year, 2 - 10 year and 10 - 25 year zones,
with the 50 day zone being ranked as the highest level of sensitivity (i.e. Sensitivity Zone 1 -
based on the importance of the well to the water supply and the other categories ranked on a
descending basis of sensitivity (Sensitivity Zones 2, 3 and 4)).
A WHPA shall be considered as a special protection area within which certain land uses may or
may not be permitted in accordance with the underlying land uses designation and the following
policies.
A WHPA may be modified by amendment to this Plan where the geographic extent of the
WHPA in general, or any of the time-related zone boundaries are modified through further
study, or where a municipal well is abandoned. Establishment of a new WHPA shall be subject
to an amendment to this Plan concurrently with the Class Environmental Assessment process.
Scope of Land Use Categories
For the purposes of this Plan, Table 1 sets out the scope of prohibited land uses in each
                        •
Sensitivity Zone (i.e. “ ” - indicates a zone in which use is prohibited), with Zone 1 representing
the highest level of sensitivity and Zone 4 the least level of sensitivity. No land in any local
municipal Official Plan shall be designated or re-designated for any use prohibited in a
Sensitivity Zone as set out in Table 1.




                                                                                                H-1
Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan




 Table 1: Prohibition of Land Uses by Sensitivity Zone for Wellhead Protection
                                •
             Sensitivity Zones (‘ ’- indicates zones in which use is prohibited)
 Land use or activity                                         Zone 1   Zone 2   Zone 3   Zone 4
 Wastewater or septage lagoon
                                                                 •        •        •        •
 Solid waste landfill site, organic soil conditioning sites
 Snow storage and disposal facilities
 Hazardous waste disposal facility
 Auto wrecking and salvage yards
 Disposal of abattoir and rendering wastes
 Generation and storage of hazardous or liquid
 industrial wastes
 Warehousing and bulk storage of petroleum products
 (oils and fuels), petroleum solvents, pesticides,
 herbicides, fungicides, chemicals or hazardous
 substances except on-farm, storage for agricultural
 production or for use for an individual household
 Bulk storage of tires
 Outdoor storage of road salt
 Earthen manure storage facilities
 Construction equipment
 Contaminants listed in Schedule 3 (Severely Toxic
 Contaminants) of Ontario Regulation 347
 On-site (private) sewage disposal system
                                                                 •
 Groundwater heat pump
 Gas or oil pipeline
 New sewage collection main
 Storage of animal manure except by an individual for
 personal or household use
                                                                 •        •
 Animal agriculture except by an individual for personal
 or household use
 Storage of agricultural equipment except by an
 individual for personal or household use
 Sand and gravel extraction, peat extraction
 Underground storage tanks (USTs) and any in-ground
 process-related piping of chemicals and lubricants,
 sumps such as dry wells and machine pits, and
 automotive repair pits
 Above ground storage tanks (ASTs) with Secondary
 containment




H-2
                                                           Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan




Table 1: Prohibition of Land Uses by Sensitivity Zone for Wellhead Protection
                            •
         Sensitivity Zones (‘ ’- indicates zones in which use is prohibited)
Land use or activity                                       Zone 1        Zone 2         Zone 3         Zone 4
Land application of biosolids or septage
                                                               •              •              ♦
Foundries
Non-ferrous metal smelting and refining
Metal casting operations
Metal     finishing     operations     (electroplating,
electrocoating, galvanizing, painting, application of
baked enamel)
Assembly of aircraft and aircraft parts, motor vehicles,
truck, bus bodies, trailers, rail cars, mobile homes,
ships and boats
Vehicle stampings
Commercial or industrial dry cleaning of textiles and
textile products
Leather tanning and finishing
Wood and wood product preservation and treatment
Automobile service stations and gas bars or card-lock
facilities
Manufacturing of unfinished fabricated metal products
and parts
Manufacturing of cable and wire
Manufacturing of jewellery and precious metals
Manufacturing of engines, engine parts, steering and
suspension parts, wheels and brakes
Manufacturing of agricultural,         commercial   and
industrial machinery
Manufacturing of chemicals, resins, paints, varnish,
printing inks, adhesives, plastics and reinforced
fibreglass plastic
Manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and medicines
Manufacturing of electronic components such as
semiconductors, printed circuit boards and cathode
ray tubes
Manufacturing of wet electrical equipment and wet
batteries
Manufacturing of motor vehicle wiring
Manufacturing and dyeing of textiles




                                                                                                                 H-3
Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan



 Table 1: Prohibition of Land Uses by Sensitivity Zone for Wellhead Protection
                                •
             Sensitivity Zones (‘ ’- indicates zones in which use is prohibited)
 Land use or activity                                        Zone 1   Zone 2   Zone 3   Zone 4
 Market gardening farms
                                                                •        •       ♦
 Intensive livestock operations and associated manure
 storage facilities and land application of manure
 Automated production of baked goods, dairy, canned
 goods, frozen foods, processed food and meat
 Automated manufacturing of soft drinks, distilleries,
 breweries and wine making
 Photographic developing facilities
 Printing of newspaper, packaging and books
 Repair of photographic equipment, electrical motors,
 electrical equipment, vending machines, small motors,
 appliances, computer equipment and jewellery
 Repair of motor vehicles, water craft, rail vehicles,
 trucks, buses and machinery
 Golf courses
 Airports
 Transit terminals
 Medical, health and other laboratories
 Storage, repair yards and facilities for contractors
 Asphalt paving and roofing contractor yards
 Lawn care contractors
 Funeral homes
 Cemeteries
 Machinery equipment and rental outlets
 Retails sale of agricultural fertilisers and pesticides
 Manufacturing of rubber products
 Manufacturing or electrical appliances, equipment,
 motors, lighting fixtures, lamps
 Manufacturing of electric light bulbs and tubes
 Manufacturing of dry batteries
 Manufacturing of soaps and toiletry preparations
 Manufacturing of plastic and foam parts and products
 Furniture, casket, cabinet and other wood products
 manufacturing and assembly
 Glass and glass products manufacturing
 Manufacturing of paper, newsprint, boxes



H-4
                                                       Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan




Existing Uses, Enlargements, Extensions or Change of Uses
Land uses in Table 1 existing within a WHPA at the time of the coming into force of zoning by-
law amendments adopted in accordance with the policies for Wellhead Protection Areas, will be
recognised as legal non-conforming uses within the zoning by-law. Once these uses, cease to
exist, such legal conforming status will be lost and such uses will no longer be permitted. A legal
non-conforming status for market gardens will not be lost because of discontinuous use if the
discontinuity of use is due solely to crop rotation practices.
When considering enlargements or extensions or a change of use, conditions shall be imposed
that will minimise the degradation or groundwater (or surface water) quality, as appropriate.
Exceptions

                     ♦
Uses denoted with a “ ” in Table 1 may be permitted in Zone 3 subject to the following
performance standards provided such uses are permitted in the underlying land use
designation:
   1. The preparation of a disclosure report specifying the nature of the proposed use, its
      associated required services and facilities, the activities and operations to be conducted
      on-site and the substances to be used or stored on-site
   2. The preparation of a detailed hydrogelogical study using protocols acceptable to the
      Ministry of the Environment that predicts the net groundwater and/or surface water
      quality impacts likely to occur on the subject property, or down gradient properties and
      on the municipal well. The cumulative impacts of development in the WHPA will also be
      addressed in the report. The study report shall include mitigation measures for the
      design, construction and post-construction monitoring of the proposed use and where
      the impacts of the use cannot be adequately mitigated within an acceptable risk to
      groundwater and (surface water) quality to the satisfaction of the municipality, the use
      shall not be permitted.
   3. The preparation of a spill prevention and contingency plan outlining design measures,
      facilities and procedures to avoid and mitigate the effects of spillage of any
      contaminants.
The cost of the disclosure report, the hydrogeological study and the spill prevention and
contingency plan will be borne by the proponent.
Intensive Livestock Operations – Exception
Despite the policy prohibiting, new or expanding intensive livestock operations and associated
manure storage facilities and land application may be permitted in a Sensitivity 2, 3 or 4 WHPA,
where farming is a permitted use, subject to meeting the requirements of the Nutrient
Management Act, 2001 and regulations thereunder or a Nutrient Management By-law,
whichever is the prevailing control. Such uses shall not be permitted where there are no nutrient
management controls in place.
Abandoned Wells
Prior to new development, proponents will be required to carry out an investigation for
abandoned water wells within any WHPA and provide for the proper sealing of same.




                                                                                                             H-5
Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan



Development Criteria
Development may be permitted in a Wellhead Protection Area where the use is permitted in the
underlying land uses designation, where it is not a prohibited use under the Wellhead Protection
policies of this Plan and where it meets the required performance standards.
The cost of any studies or investigations required as a condition of development shall be borne
by the proponent.
Where stormwater or drainage controls are required for any development, such studies shall be
integrated with source protection measures for WHPAs.
In addition to meeting the requirements for water quality, any proponent of development shall
meet the water quantity requirements of this Plan.
Consideration will be given to the technical merit of a development proposal as well as to how
its approval will serve to enhance water quality or source protection.
The municipality may consult with any technical agency deemed appropriate in the review of a
development proposal in a WHPA.
Best Management Practices
The municipality will promote the use of best management practices in farming, other industries
and commercial enterprises as a means to minimise the risk of land use activities in and around
a WHPA.
Monitoring
The municipality or a delegated authority will maintain a data base of information collected as
part of the development review process and such information may be used to enhance the
decision making process for future applications.
The municipality may undertake to implement a program to establish a system of sentinel
monitoring wells within municipal WHPAs in order to help identify contaminants in the
groundwater before they reach the municipal well.
Adjacent Lands
Despite the above policies, the municipality may limit other land uses outside of the WHPA, but
in the general vicinity where they are considered to have a potential impact on source
protection.
Zoning By-law
The zoning by-law shall incorporate appropriate requirements to implement the policies for
wellhead protection. More specifically, the zoning by-law shall implement the use prohibitions
and performance requirements and other policies described as set out in Table 1. The By-law
                                                    • ♦
                                                      or
shall require a rezoning for any use designated as ‘ ’ ‘ ’in a WHPA subject to first meeting
the performance requirements and development criteria outlined above. The zoning by-law may
set out minimum distance separations between a municipal well and any land use, building or
structure whether the use is located within a WHPA or is in the vicinity of a WHPA.
Site Plan Control
A municipality shall require site plan control as a condition of the approval of any use of land
within a WHPA. Site plan control shall be used as a means of incorporating mitigating and
remedial measures, proper siting and containment of storage facilities, lot grading and drainage
and site design plans identified through the development review process.


H-6
                                                       Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan




B.     Aquifer Protection
Goal for Aquifer Protection
To provide for the protection of sensitive aquifers from contamination associated with certain
land uses.
To prohibit land uses from establishing in vulnerable aquifer areas or to ensure that certain uses
can be established within and acceptable level of risk to groundwater quality.
Identification of Aquifer Protection Areas
High aquifer vulnerable areas are show as a “   High Aquifer Protection Area” on Schedule ‘ tox’
the Official Plan. A High Aquifer Protection Area illustrates aquifers which are highly susceptible
to contamination owing to porous soil or other geological conditions that increase the rate of
                                                                                 x’
migration of contaminants from surface activities to the aquifer. Schedule ‘ also illustrates
Moderate and Low Aquifer Protection Areas. These areas are also susceptible to contamination
and warrant protection, but at a lesser level.
Where a WHPA overlaps an Aquifer Protection Area, the policies of the WHPA shall take
precedence.
An Aquifer Protection Area shall be considered as a special protection area within which certain
land uses may or may not be permitted in accordance with the underlying land uses designation
and the following policies.
An Aquifer Constraint Area may be modified by amendment to this Plan where the geographic
extent of the Area in general, is modified through further study.
Scope of Land Use Categories
For the purposes of this Plan, Table 2 sets out the scope of prohibited land uses in an Aquifer
Protection Area. No land in any local municipal Official Plan shall be designated or re-
designated for any use in Category A Table 2.
Uses Category B and C listed in Table 2 may be permitted in Moderate and Low Aquifer
Protection Areas subject to meeting specified performance requirements.




                                                                                                             H-7
Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan



Table 2: Prohibited Land Uses in Aquifer Protection Areas
Land Use or Activity                                                        Aquifer Protection Area
Category A
Wastewater or septage lagoon                                                land    uses   which    are
                                                                            permitted in the underlying
Solid waste landfill site, organic soil conditioning sites
                                                                            land use designation are
Snow storage and disposal facilities                                        permitted in a High Aquifer
                                                                            Protection Area except for
Hazardous waste disposal facility                                           those uses set out in
Auto wrecking and salvage yards                                             Category A.
Disposal of abattoir and rendering wastes
Generation and storage of hazardous or liquid industrial wastes
Warehousing and bulk storage of petroleum products (oils and fuels),
petroleum solvents, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, chemicals or
hazardous substances except on-farm, storage for agricultural
production or for use for an individual household
Bulk storage of tires
Outdoor storage of road salt
Earthen manure storage facilities
Construction equipment
Contaminants listed in Schedule 3 (Severely Toxic Contaminants) of
Ontario Regulation 347
Storage of animal manure except by an individual for personal or
household use
Animal agriculture except by an individual for personal or household use
Storage of agricultural equipment except by an individual for personal or
household use
Sand and gravel extraction, peat extraction
Underground storage tanks (USTs) and any in-ground process-related
piping of chemicals and lubricants, sumps such as dry wells and
machine pits, and automotive repair pits
Above ground storage tanks (ASTs) with secondary containment
Category B
Storage of animal manure except by an individual for personal or            land    uses    which    are
household use                                                               permitted in the underlying
                                                                            land use designation are
Animal agriculture except by an individual for personal or household use
                                                                            permitted in a Moderate or
Storage of agricultural equipment except by an individual for personal or   Low Aquifer Protection Area
household use                                                               subject to meeting specified
                                                                            performance requirements.
Sand and gravel extraction, peat extraction
Underground storage tanks (USTs) and any in-ground process-related
piping of chemicals and lubricants, sumps such as dry wells and
machine pits, and automotive repair pits




H-8
                                                            Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan




Table 2: Prohibited Land Uses in Aquifer Protection Areas
Land Use or Activity                                                            Aquifer Protection Area
Above ground storage tanks (ASTs) with secondary containment
Land application of biosolids or septage
Foundries
Non-ferrous metal smelting and refining
Metal casting operations
Metal finishing operations (electroplating, electrocoating, galvanizing,
painting, application of baked enamel)
Assembly of aircraft and aircraft parts, motor vehicles, truck, bus bodies,
trailers, rail cars, mobile homes, ships and boats
Vehicle stampings
Commercial or industrial dry cleaning of textiles and textile products
Leather tanning and finishing
Wood and wood product preservation and treatment
Automobile service stations and gas bars or card-lock facilities
Manufacturing of unfinished fabricated metal products and parts
Manufacturing of cable and wire
Manufacturing of jewellery and precious metals
Manufacturing of engines, engine parts, steering and suspension parts,
wheels and brakes
Manufacturing of agricultural, commercial and industrial machinery
Manufacturing of chemicals, resins, paints, varnish, printing inks,
adhesives, plastics and reinforced fibreglass plastic
Manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and medicines
Manufacturing of electronic components such as semiconductors,
printed circuit boards and cathode ray tubes
Manufacturing of wet electrical equipment and wet batteries
Manufacturing of motor vehicle wiring
Manufacturing and dyeing of textiles
Category C
Market gardening farms                                                          land    uses    which    are
                                                                                permitted in the underlying
Intensive livestock operations and associated manure storage facilities
                                                                                land use designation are
and land application of manure
                                                                                permitted in a Moderate or
Automated production of baked goods, dairy, canned goods, frozen                Low Aquifer Protection Area
foods, processed food and meat                                                  subject to meeting specified
                                                                                performance requirements.
Automated manufacturing of soft drinks, distilleries, breweries and wine
making



                                                                                                                  H-9
Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan



Table 2: Prohibited Land Uses in Aquifer Protection Areas
Land Use or Activity                                                      Aquifer Protection Area
Photographic developing facilities
Printing of newspaper, packaging and books
Repair of photographic equipment, electrical motors, electrical
equipment, vending machines, small motors, appliances, computer
equipment and jewellery
Repair of motor vehicles, water craft, rail vehicles, trucks, buses and
machinery
Golf courses
Airports
Transit terminals
Medical, health and other laboratories
Storage, repair yards and facilities for contractors
Asphalt paving and roofing contractor yards
Lawn care contractors
Funeral homes
Cemeteries
Machinery equipment and rental outlets
Retails sale of agricultural fertilisers and pesticides
Manufacturing of rubber products
Manufacturing or electrical appliances, equipment, motors, lighting
fixtures, lamps
Manufacturing of electric light bulbs and tubes
Manufacturing of dry batteries
Manufacturing of soaps and toiletry preparations
Manufacturing of plastic and foam parts and products
Furniture, casket, cabinet and other wood products manufacturing and
assembly
Glass and glass products manufacturing
Manufacturing of paper, newsprint, boxes


Performance Standards
Land uses in Categories B and C in Table 1 may be permitted in Moderate and Low Aquifer
Protection Areas subject to the following performance standards provided such uses are
permitted in the underlying land use designation:
       1. The preparation of a disclosure report specifying the nature of the proposed use, its
          associated required services and facilities, the activities and operations to be conducted
          on-site and the substances to be used or stored on-site


H-10
                                                     Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan




   2. The preparation of a detailed hydrogelogical study using protocols acceptable to the
      Ministry of the Environment that predicts the net groundwater and/or surface water
      quality impacts likely to occur on the subject property, on down gradient properties and
      the aquifer. The cumulative impacts of development in the aquifer will also be addressed
      in the report. The study report shall include mitigation measures for the design,
      construction and post-construction monitoring of the proposed use and where the
      impacts of the use cannot be adequately mitigated within an acceptable risk to
      groundwater and (surface water) quality to the satisfaction of the municipality, the use
      shall not be permitted.
   3. The preparation of a spill prevention and contingency plan outlining design measures,
      facilities and procedures to avoid and mitigate the effects of spillage of any
      contaminants.
The cost of the disclosure report, the hydrogeological study and the spill prevention and
contingency plan will be borne by the proponent
Intensive Livestock Operations
Despite the policy limiting intensive livestock operations and associated manure storage
facilities and land application, new or expanding operations will be permitted in a Moderate or
Low Aquifer Protection Area where farming is a permitted use, subject to meeting the
requirements of the Nutrient Management Act, 2001 and regulations thereunder or a Nutrient
Management By-law, whichever is the prevailing control. Such uses shall not be permitted
where there are no nutrient management controls in place.
Existing Uses, Enlargements, Extensions or Change of Uses
Land uses in Table 1 – Category A existing within a High Aquifer Protection Area at the time of
the coming into force of zoning by-law amendments adopted in accordance with the policies for
Wellhead Protection Areas, will be recognised as legal non-conforming uses within the zoning
by-law. Once these uses, cease to exist, such legal conforming status will be lost and such uses
will no longer be permitted.
When considering enlargements or extensions or a change of use for a Category B or C use
from Table 1, conditions may be imposed that will minimise the degradation or groundwater (or
surface water) quality, as appropriate e.g. compliance with performance standards.
Development Criteria
Development may be permitted in an Aquifer Protection Area where the use is permitted in the
underlying land uses designation, where it is not a prohibited use under the Aquifer Protection
policies of this Plan and where it meets the required performance standards.
The cost of any studies or investigations required as a condition of development shall be borne
by the proponent.
Where stormwater or drainage controls are required for any development, such studies shall be
submitted with an application for development..
In addition to meeting the requirements for water quality, any proponent of development shall
meet the water quantity requirements of this Plan.
Consideration will be given to the technical merit of a development proposal as well as to how
its approval will serve to enhance water quality or source protection.



                                                                                                          H-11
Appendix H. Example Planning Policies for an Official Plan



The municipality may consult with any technical agency deemed appropriate in the review of a
development proposal in an Aquifer Protection Area.
Best Management Practices
The municipality will promote the use of best management practices in farming, other industries
and commercial enterprises as a means to minimise the risk of land use activities in and around
an Aquifer Protection Area.
Monitoring
The municipality or a delegated authority will maintain a data base of information collected as
part of the development review process and such information may be used to enhance the
decision making process for future applications.
The municipality may undertake to implement a program to establish a system of sentinel
monitoring wells where deemed appropriate in order to help identify contaminants in the
groundwater before they reach the municipal well.
Adjacent Lands
Despite the above policies, the municipality may limit other land uses outside of an Aquifer
Protection area, but in the general vicinity where they are considered to have a potential impact
on the aquifer.
Zoning By-law
The zoning by-law shall incorporate appropriate requirements to implement the policies for
aquifer protection. More specifically, the zoning by-law shall implement the use prohibitions and
performance requirements and other policies described as set out in Table 1. The By-law shall
require a rezoning for any use designated as a Category B or C us subject to first meeting the
performance requirements and development criteria outlined above.
Site Plan Control
A municipality shall require site plan control as a condition of the approval of any use of land
within the Aquifer Protection Areas as a means of incorporating mitigating and remedial
measures, proper siting and containment of storage facilities, lot grading and drainage and site
design plans identified through the development review process.




H-12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:142
posted:5/23/2011
language:English
pages:264